Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Aldridge Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Clacton Urban District Council Bill (by Order),

Guildford Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Lee Conservancy Catchment Board Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

London and North Eastern Railway Bill (by Order),

London Midland and Scottish Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

London Passenger Transport Board Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next.

Middlesex County Council (Sewerage) Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Southern Railway Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Thursday.

Swinton and Pendlebury Corporation Bill (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE.

FIRE RISKS.

Mr. Errington: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that there is a danger of fire in ships

due to the use of insecticide having a paraffin base; and whether he is-prepared to introduce regulations in regard to this matter?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): The question of the use on ships of insecticides having a paraffin base was fully investigated by the Board of Trade some time ago, and it was decided that the issue of special regulations was unnecessary. I am not aware of any new circumstances which call for a reconsideration of this decision.

Mr. Errington: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when electric wires are placed behind woodwork so treated there is considerable danger of fire?

Mr. Stanley: This investigation was carried out as recently as 1930, and it was found then that there was no undue risk involved.

JUNIOR OFFICERS.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the information supplied to his Department shows that there is still a general shortage of junior officers in the British Mercantile Marine; to what extent this can be attributed to the severity of the Board's examinations; and has he had any complaints that the standard is unduly high?

Mr. Stanley: I understand that there is no general shortage of junior navigating officers in the British Mercantile Marino at the present time, but that there is still a shortage of engineer officers. The system under which engineers are examined by the Board of Trade for certificates of competency has recently been the subject of a comprehensive inquiry by a Departmental Committee. That committee, whose report was published on 3rd January and is now being very carefully considered, has recommended a number of changes in the system, but they stated that the present overall standard of the examination is appropriate and should be maintained.

Mr. Day: Is it intended to modify the standard of this examination?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. The recommendation of the committee was that the standard should be maintained.

Mr. Kirkwood: Would the right hon. Gentleman look into the matter of the


shortage of engineers, and see whether it is because of the bad conditions that prevail for engineers and the low standard of wages?

Mr. Stanley: That, of course, would be be a matter for the industry itself.

STEAMSHIP "SILKSWORTH."

Mr. Thurtle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any statement to make regarding the mutiny of the Japanese members of the crew of the British steamer "Silksworth" off Hong Kong?

Mr. Stanley: I have no information about the incident to which the hon. Member refers, but I have cabled to Hong Kong for a written report, and will communicate the result of my inquiry to the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE BALANCE.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the excess of imports into this country over exports from this country reached a total of £432,000,000 for the past year; whether, in view of the fact that a large part of the raw materials now being imported are being used in connection with the rearmament programme and not for manufacturing goods that will subsequently be exported, he is satisfied that the balance of trade is not being endangered; and whether he can make a statement upon the subject?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I do not consider that the position need cause anxiety, but the subject is hardly capable of discussion by way of question and answer. An article will be published shortly in the Board of Trade journal, which will contain a statistical examination of the relevant facts.

JAPAN (WAR MATERIAL, EXPORT LICENCES).

Mr. Mander: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of licences for the export of arms to Japan issued during the last three months, the number under consideration at the present time, and the sums involved?

Mr. Stanley: During the last three months two licences have been issued for the export of war material to Japan. No applications for similar licences are at present under consideration. As has been previously explained in this House, His Majesty's Government consider that it is contrary to the public interest to publish particulars of licences issued for the export of arms and ammunition to particular destinations. I may add, however, that the value of exports of arms, ammunition and naval and military stores to Japan during the three months ended 31st January, 1938, was £36,314.

Mr. Mander: Do I understand that we are to some extent supplying the Japanese Government with arms, in spite of the resolution of the League of Nations Council?

Mr. Stanley: That matter was very fully dealt with in replies to questions put to my Noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs just before Christmas.

Mr. Gallacher: Would not the figure have been higher but for the action of the Middlesbrough and London dockers?

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TRADE AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS).

Mr. Hepworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, before agreeing to reduce or stabilise the duties on any import goods in connection with the Anglo-American Trade Agreement, he will undertake to consult representatives of the producers or manufacturers of such goods in Great Britain?

Mr. Stanley: I would refer my hon. friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. H. G. Williams) on 2nd December.

Mr. Lyons: In view of the uncertainty which that must represent in many specified trades in this country, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the position that must arise?

Mr. Stanley: The position is this: I asked for representations from organisations that thought they might be affected, and I received information from a large number of them. I have asked certain other industries for, up-to-date information so as to have a complete a picture as possible, and, so far as I can foresee, I have had information and representa-


tions from every industry in this country that might possibly be covered by any negotiations.

Mr. Lyons: Would my right hon. Friend, later on, receive personal representations from people in an industry whose case has a special bearing on the matter?

Mr. Stanley: I cannot undertake myself to receive them, but we have had a number of personal calls at the Board of Trade from representatives of industries, and of course, if any industry that thinks it is likely to be affected wants to supplement by a personal interview the information it has already given, we shall naturally be glad to see its representatives.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Is there any way by which this House, which is assumed to be the taxing authority, can be made privy to these letters and correspondence, and the pressure brought to bear on the Board of Trade?

Mr. Stanley: There is no question here of pressure. It would be absurd for a delegation to go out to America to negotiate a most interesting treaty without having before it information from those industries which might possibly be affected.

Mr. Benn: Would it be too much to ask that the House of Commons should know something about these new taxes?

Sir Percy Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that no vested interests are allowed to stand in the way of a real constructive trade agreement between this country and the United States of America?

Mr. Stanley: I agree with the hon. Member's point, but I do not see what it has to do with this question. I do not regard the desire of an industry to see that my delegation shall have every possible information as necessarily standing in the way.

Mr. Boothby: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in connection with the forthcoming negotiations for a trade agreement with the United States of America, the questions of currency stability and the level of world commodity prices will be taken into consideration?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir.

Mr. Boothby: Does my right hon. Friend think that a mere agreement to reduce certain tariffs is going to be of any value at all unless we have some understanding with regard to these two other much more important questions of currency and commodities prices?

Mr. Stanley: I agree as to the importance of those two matters, but they are not necessarily appropriate matters for a trade agreement.

Mr. De la Bère: Will steps be taken to safeguard the interests of agriculture in this agreement?

RUSSIA.

Mr. Hepworth: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether it is proposed to review the trade position between this country and Russia?

Mr. Stanley: The whole question of commercial relations between this country and the Soviet Union is receiving careful consideration.

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under the existing Russian Trade Agreement, the imports and exports relation, so far as payments due in 1937 are concerned, is 1: 1.2; and, in view of the answer that he gave yesterday with regard to the trade balance, is he not aware that the trade balance is extremely unsatisfactory?

Mr. Boothby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this year the Russians have only bought 16,000 barrels of herring, as against 1,000,000 before the War; and what is he going to do about that?

HOSIERY (JAPANESE COMPETITION).

Mr. Lyons: asked the President of the Board of Trade the quantities of hose, stockings and knitted underwear imported into this country from Japan for the year 1937; and whether he can approximate the employment that would have been provided for the British hosiery industry by the manufacture of those goods in this country?

Mr. Stanley: With my hon. and learned Friend's permission, I will circulate particulars of the imports in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the question, I regret that, as has been previously explained to my hon. and


learned Friend, owing to the number of unknown factors I cannot give an estimate.

Mr. Lyons: Can my right hon. Friend say whether this is a matter that has been considered by the Import Duties Advisory Committee on their own initiative, as they have power to do under the Act?

Mr. Stanley: I could not say without notice.

Mr. Watkins: Are these goods which are imported from Japan always marked with the country of origin, or are they sometimes marked with the word "Foreign"?

Mr. Stanley: If the hon. Member will put that question down, I will give him the information.

Mr. George Griffiths: Who buys this stuff from Japan before it is sold in this country?

Following are the particulars:

Table showing the quantity of certain descriptions of hosiery imported into the United Kingdom, and registered during the year 1937 as consigned from Japan (including Formosa).

Description.
Quantity Dozen pairs.


Knitted, netted or crocheted goods (hosiery)—


Stockings and hose—



Of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton
1,006,543


Of wool, or of which the chief value is wool
6,075


Of silk, or of which the chief value is silk
6,670


Of artificial silk, or of which the chief value is artificial silk
856


Underwear (including knitted, etc., shirts) not elsewhere specified in Import List—
Dozens.


Of cotton, or of which the chief value is cotton
467,031


Of wool, or of which the chief value is wool
1,240


Of other knitted, netted or crocheted material
766

Note.—The above figures are provisional.

JAPAN.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade what British firm or firms have any arrangements with the Mitsui Company; what are the arrangements; and what are the financial arrangements?

Mr. Stanley: I have no information about any arrangement between undertakings in this country and the Mitsui Company of Japan.

Mr. Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department have any knowledge whether any relations or arrangements of any kind exist between any British firms and the Nippon Steel Company or the Kabushiki Kaisha Nihon Seiko-Sho Company; are any British patents or rights used by these companies; if so, through whom; and what are the financial arrangements?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the remainder of the question, two United Kingdom patents have been granted during the past 15 years to the Kabushiki Kaisha Nihon Seiko-Sho Company. These patents are still in force, but no information is available as to whether they are being worked in this country, nor does the Register of Patents contain any entry recording any dealings therein by means of licences or otherwise. I have no information as to whether these companies have acquired any rights or interests in any other United Kingdom patents.

Mr. Smith: In view of the fact that a number of big steel monopolists in this country have financial interests in these Japanese companies, will not the President of the Board of Trade use his influence to deal with this matter?

Mr. Stanley: I have given the hon. Gentleman all the information that I have on the subject. If he has something in mind which I do not know, perhaps he will let me know.

CREAM SEPARATORS (CANADA).

Mr. Perkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, as a result of the Ottawa Agreements, the firm of R. A. Lister and Company agreed to distribute in this country certain products made by the Cockshutt Plow and Frost and Wood Companies in exchange for a preference in favour of English-made cream separators; and whether he can give any figures for 1937 showing the value of Canadian-made products sold in this country under this agreement and the value of English-made separators exported?

Mr. Stanley: I regret that I have no detailed information about the arrangement to which my hon. Friend refers, and do not know what Canadian-made products are covered by it. Figures of the value of cream separators exported from the United Kingdom to Canada are not yet available for 1937, but in 1936 the value of these exports was £15,919.

Mr. Perkins: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of a proposal to remove the British preference under the Canadian tariff schedules on cream separators; and, having regard to the serious repercussion which would accrue to the two-way trade between the Dominion of Canada and this country if such a decision was taken, will he make the strongest possible recommendations to the Canadian Government that the present tariff preference should not be disturbed?

Mr. Stanley: I am aware of a proposal contained in a report of a Select Special Committee of the Canadian House of Commons on Farm Implements that cream separators should be placed on the free list. As regards the second part of the question, I am afraid that there are no grounds on which representations to the Canadian Government could usefully be made.

Statement showing the mean wholesale prices of first and second grade beef based on actual sales at the London Central Markets on Monday, 24th January. 1938, and on Monday. 28th January. 1935, as authorised for publication by the Central Markets Committee, with the percentage increases or decreases.


——
Price per 8 lbs
Increase or Decrease.


28th January, 1935.
24th January, 1938.



s.
d.
s.
d.
per cent.


Scottish, short sides
…
4
11
5
10
+ 18.6


Scottish, long sides
…
4
7
5
6
+ 20.0


English, long sides
…
4
1
5
2
+ 26.5


English pieces
…
4
3
5
4
+ 25.5


Irish (Birkenhead killed) sides
…
3
9
4
10
+ 28.9


Irish (Birkenhead killed) pieces
…
4
1
5
1
+ 24.5


Argentine chilled hindquarters
…
3
8
4
6½
+ 23.9


Argentine chilled forequarters
…
2
6
3
0½
+ 21.7


Uruguayan chilled hindquarters
…
3
5
4
3½
+ 25.6


Australian frozen hindquarters
…
2
8
2
11
+ 9.4


Australian frozen crops
…
2
1½
2
3½
+ 7.8

(EGGS (IMPORTS).

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade what have been the results of recent conversations

Mr. Perkins: Will my right hon. Friend draw the attention of the Canadian authorities to the fact that firms in this country have bought from Canada to an amount approximately double the value of the goods they have exported?

Mr. Stanley: As I said in my previous reply, I do not know anything about the arrangements. If my hon. Friend has any facts that he can communicate to me, I shall be glad if he will do so.

BEEF (PRICES).

Mr. T. Williams: asked the President of the Board of Trade the wholesale prices for various kinds of beef in Smithfield Market on 24th January, 1938, and the nearest parallel date in 1935, with the percentage increases or decreases?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Williams: Has any official information been obtained as to whether the increases are considerable, and has consideration been given to the effect of the beef subsidy?

Mr. Stanley: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Following is the answer.

with egg-exporting countries with a view to preventing the dislocation of the Home market by untimely importations?

Mr. Stanley: The discussions to which my hon. Friend refers were of an informal character and were initiated with a view to guarding against a recurrence of the disturbance of the market which took place last winter. In the event, the need for considering special measures did not arise.

Sir P. Hurd: Have these discussions, in fact, had any good result?

Mr. Stanley: They were to guard against a possible contingency which, in fact, did not arise. Last year, there was a very great increase in exports in December, which flooded our market. This year there was a decrease, and no corresponding effect on prices.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been directed to the effect of the high protective Customs duty on cotton goods imported into India, and in particular of the effect on Lancashire; and what steps does he propose to take in order to improve the prospects for the cotton industry?

Mr. Stanley: Yes, Sir. This is one of the questions now under discussion with the Government of India in the course of negotiations for a new trade agreement to replace that concluded at Ottawa in 1,932.

CALCIUM CARBIDE.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in the event of the Caledonian Power Bill for the production of calcium carbide at Corpach, near Fort William, being approved by Parliament, the Government will consider the advisability of establishing a system of State control whereby the prices of carbide will be regulated in such a way as to prevent the British Oxygen Company, or any other semi-monopoly, exacting prohibitive prices from the consumers?

Mr. Stanley: Any calcium carbide made in this country will be in competition with the imported product, which at present enters free of duty. If an application for an import duty comes before the Import Duties Advisory Committee, they must, as part of their statutory functions, consider the interests of the consumer before making any recommendation.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that at Fort William the housing conditions of the workers are not in such a scandalous state as at Kin-lochleven?

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid that that is not a matter for me. The Board of Trade covers many subjects, but not housing.

Mr. Kirkwood: Is it not the case that certain requirements have to be laid down by the President of the Board of Trade, and should not one of them be that the workers in the industry must be well housed?

Mr. Stanley: I do not have to lay down any requirements.

EMPIRE-GROWN TOBACCO.

Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the annual import value of Empire-grown tobacco was 2,250,000 pounds, as against 14,500,000 pounds from America, both before payment of duty; what steps are being taken by British overseas authorities to obtain a larger share of this trade; and what tobacco manufacturers in the United Kingdom are doing to assist Empire growers to produce tobacco suitable for retail sale in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the latter part, I would refer my hon. Friend to the recent report on tobacco of the Imperial Economic Committee, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in the forthcoming trade agreement with the United States he will not prejudice the interests of Empire tobacco growers?

Mr. Stanley: I am fully cognisant of the interests of Empire tobacco growers, but I am not prepared to limit the course of the negotiations.

WHEAT SUPPLIES.

Mr. Day: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will consider the advisability of appointing a suitable committee for the purpose of making an exhaustive inquiry into our present wheat supplies?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir. Exhaustive inquiries have already been made, and all the relevant information is available.

Mr. Day: Are inquiries still going on, or are they completed?

Mr. Stanley: I said that all the relevant information is now available.

SULPHATE OF AMMONIA (PRICES).

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the President of the Board of Trade the average price at which sulphate of ammonia was sold for export from the United Kingdom in each of the last six months for which statistics are available, together with the corresponding average prices to users within the United Kingdom?

Mr. Stanley: As the answer involves a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:


Table showing the average declared export value (f.o.b.) and the average wholesale price on the London market, of sulphate of ammonia during each month July to December, 1937.


Month.
Average declared value (f.o.b.) per ton.
Average whole sale price per ton on the London market (a).


1937.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


July
6
3
3
7
5
0


August
6
4
5
7
3
0


September
6
4
0
7
4
7


October
6
8
7
7
6
0


November
6
5
11
7
7
6


December
6
9
6
7
8
10


(a) These are the average of weekly prices as published in the "Agricultural Market Report," and are for not less than 6-ton lots, at purchasers' nearest railway station. For lots of 4 tons and under 6 tons the price was is. per ton extra, for lots of 2 tons and under 4 tons, 5s. per ton extra and for lots of I ton and under 2 tons, 10s. per ton extra.

TRACK-LAYING AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS.

Mr. de Rothschild: asked the President of the Board of Trade the number of track-laying agricultural tractors which have been imported into the United Kingdom since July, 1936; the total amount of duty collected in respect of these tractors; and the number of this type of tractor manufactured within the United Kingdom in that period?

Mr. Stanley: During the 18 months ended December, 1937, 743 track-laying agricultural tractors were imported into the United Kingdom, and the approximate amount of duty collected was

£94,000. No information is available as to the number of track-laying agricultural tractors manufactured in the United Kingdom during this period.

Mr. Liddall: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that the best agricultural machinery is still obtainable only at Lincoln?

SWEDEN (GOVERNMENT TRADE MEASURES).

Mr. De Chair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can give the House any account of the positive measures now being taken by the Swedish Government in a time of prosperity to safeguard against the possibilities of another slump, instead of waiting to make hasty improvisations should an emergency situation arise?

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Cranborne): I have been asked to reply. I have seen it stated in the Press that the Swedish Government intend to put forward proposals for this purpose before the Riksdag, and His Majesty's Minister at Stockholm is being instructed to furnish a report as soon as such proposals are made public.

Mr. Shinwell: Will this report be made available to Members of Parliament?

Viscount Cranborne: Perhaps the hon. Member will await the answer to the next question.

Mr. De Chair: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will have a copy of the report of the committee of five, set up by the Swedish Government, on measures necessary to safeguard against a slump, made available to Members in a translation at the Vote Office?

Viscount Cranborne: I have been asked to reply. I have not yet seen the report of the committee, but if it is the desire of the House my right hon. Friend will certainly consider the possibility of making it available to Members as soon as the text is received.

Mr. De Chair: Will this report be available in the Vote Office, because this is the first time a mission has been set up to investigate this matter, and it would be of great advantage?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the Noble Lord consider sending qualified experts to Sweden to discuss this matter with the Swedish Government to see how far their practice may be valuable here?

SPANISH STEAMSHIP "RITA GARCIA."

Mr. Parker: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has any information as to the whereabouts of the Spanish steamship "Rita Garcia"; on what terms this steamer was released from arrest; and how many of the present crew are British citizens?

Mr. Stanley: As regards the first part of the question, Lloyd's index reports that the "Rita Garcia" arrived at Hamburg on 30th January. As regards the second part of the question, I am informed by the Admiralty Marshal that on 28th January the owners, who were plaintiffs in an action for possession of the ship, withdrew their warrant for arrest and served on the Marshal an Instrument of Release. As no caveat against the release had been entered, the Instrument was thereupon executed, and the Collector of Customs at Grimsby was directed by the Admiralty Marshal that the vessel should be released from arrest. The vessel sailed on the same day. As regards the third part of the question, as the vessel is not a British vessel, the Board of Trade have no official information as to how many of the crew were British citizens.

Mr. Parker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that 12 members of the British Union of Fascists were obtained by General Franco's agent in London to go down, seize the vessel, and sail out with her to Hamburg where they were replaced by a German crew?

Mr. Stanley: I have seen reports to that effect in the Press, but, owing to the fact that this is a foreign vessel, I have no official information as to the nationalities of the crew.

Mr. Shinwell: But if the crew are signed on at a British port for a foreign vessel, do not they have to go through the usual channels of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Stanley: No, Sir; I understand not.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

HERRING INDUSTRY.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. BOOTHBY:

28. To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether His Majesty's Government propose to make any changes in the constitution and powers of the Herring Industry Board?

Mr. Boothby: On a point of Order. I put this question down to the Secretary of State for Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Elliot): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and I received a deputation representing the British Herring Trade Association and the Scottish Herring Producers' Association on this subject on 3rd February. The matter is under active consideration, in conjunction with other matters relating to the herring industry, and, as I stated yesterday, an announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman hold out any hope of legislation this Session?

Mr. Elliot: I would prefer that the hon. Member should await the announcement.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that William Buchan, skipper of the herring fishery boat "Boy Arthur," P.D. 1, applied to the Herring Board for a loan to refit his boat; that the Herring Board promised him a loan up to £375 on condition that he arranged for a survey; that he got a surveyor from Lloyd's, who estimated that £251 would be sufficient to put the boat in condition; that he applied for a loan to this amount; and that, after months of waiting, the Herring Board sent up another surveyor, who estimated that it would take £800 to put the boat in condition and thereupon condemned the boat; and will he make inquiries into this case and the cause of the wide discrepancy in the survey estimates?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that Mr. Buchan applied to the Herring Industry Board on 30th March, 1936, for a loan for re-conditioning his boat under a scheme published on 5th March, 1936, which provided that no loan would be


granted in excess of £375, but that no promise of a loan was made to Mr. Buchan. On 1st May, 1936, the board's surveyor, after an inspection in accordance with the scheme, reported that the cost of re-conditioning would be at least £728, and on 4th May Mr. Buchan was informed that a loan could not be granted as the cost was so much in excess of the maximum of £375. The estimate of £251 referred to in the question was, I understand, obtained by Mr. Buchan in February, 1936, before he applied for a loan. I am informed that it did not cover many items of repairs which the board's surveyor found necessary.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Minister aware that the Herring Board, when the application for a loan was made, offered a loan on condition that Mr. Buchan got a survey made, and that a Lloyd's surveyor estimated the cost of the repairs at this sum? Is the Minister further aware of the very deep bitterness that exists among the fishermen at the scandalous treatment they are getting from the Herring Board?

Mr. Boothby: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether any steps are being taken by His Majesty's Government to increase the export of cured herring to the Continent, and particularly to Germany and Russia?

Mr. Stanley: I have been asked to reply. I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave him on 9th November last.

Mr. Boothby: Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of making direct representations to the Russian Government in view of the very small number of herring they have purchased this year?

Mr. Stanley: I am receiving representations in the next few days on the whole question of trade with Russia.

Mr. Radford: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the most helpful course which the Government can take to increase the consumption of herring will be to make illegal the dyeing and chemical treatment of the fish which is now carried on?

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Sir Samuel Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many

local authorities in Scotland have exercised powers under Sections 4 and 6, as explained in paragraph 5 in the memorandum on the powers of local authorities under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, 1937, issued as a White Paper in July last?

Mr. Elliot: I am informed that applications by two local authorities for grant under the Physical Training and Recreation Act towards the provision of community centres are at present before the Regional Committees, and that a number of other authorities have similar proposals under consideration. In addition, four out of five of the community centres which have recently been approved by the Department of Health under the Housing Acts will include provision for physical training and recreation.

Sir S. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Scottish Advisory Council for Physical Training to issue a pamphlet for Scotland similar to that issued for England and Wales, which is entitled "National Fitness—the First Steps," giving particulars and details as those on pages 10, 22, 23, and 24 appropriate to Scotland?

Mr. Elliot: A survey throughout Scotland of the facilities available for physical training and recreation is at present being carried out, and immediately the necessary returns have been received the Council propose to issue separate "Guides to Fitness" for each of the five regions in Scotland, incorporating full particulars of all the facilities in every locality, and details such as those to which my hon. Friend refers. I am informed that the Scottish Advisory Council do not intend to issue a publication in a form similar to that of the pamphlet referred to.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the Secretary of State for Scotland inform the House why they are not going to issue the same pamphlet as was issued in England?

Mr. Elliot: Because it is a separate country.

Mr. Kirkwood: I want to know why they are not issuing any instructions or guide in order to see whether the young men and women in Scotland are physically fit and adequately fed so as to be able to undertake this physical training?

Mr. Elliot: The hon. Member cannot have heard the terms of the answer. I said that we are issuing these pamphlets. We are issuing them in separate pamphlets applicable to the five regions in Scotland.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a majority of the Scottish people have already received these pamphlets in England and Wales?

Sir S. Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Grants Committee of the Scottish National Advisory Council for Physical Fitness has paid any grants to organisations concerned with physical fitness; if so, to which organisations; and what were the methods by which these organisations were selected?

Mr. Elliot: On the recommendation of the Scottish Grants Committee and after consultation with the Advisory Council, I have agreed to the payment of grants to four national organisations, namely:
The Scottish Athletic Federation.
The Scottish Association of Boys' Clubs.
The Scottish Association of Girls' Clubs.
The Scottish National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations.
Applications from 10 other national organisations are at present under consideration by the Grants Committee. In addition, over 100 applications for grant and more than 50 inquiries have been submitted by local authorities and local voluntary organisations. These applications are being considered by the regional committees which have been appointed under the Act to co-ordinate facilities in their area and to encourage the promotion of schemes. Each application for a giant is considered on its merits in relation to the objects and aims of the Fitness Campaign.

Mr. Kirkwood: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what they have got to show in Scotland for the efforts which have been made up to date by these committees and the money which has been spent since the month of July?

Mr. Elliot: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question on the Paper.

Mr. Davidson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many individuals are affected in those organisations by those grants?

Mr. Elliot: Not without notice.

RIVER LEVEN, DRAINAGE.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that the residents of Milton of Balgonie are still paying drainage rate; and has he any information as to when the Fife County Council intends to proceed with the River Leven drainage scheme?

Mr. Elliot: I am aware that Fife County Council have imposed a drainage rate for the current financial year on Milton of Balgonie. With regard to the second part of the question, I am informed that the county council have not yet succeeded in reaching agreement with all the parties concerned but negotiations are actively proceeding. Meantime, I understand that the county council's engineers are engaged in the necessary surveys.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of Milton have no objection to paying the rate once the scheme is started, but that this scheme has been discussed for 20 years, and if it is discussed for another 20 years, will they have to go on paying the rate?

Mr. Elliot: I have indicated that that is a matter within the competence of the county council.

DUKE STREET PRISON, GLASGOW.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has received any report from the Prison Commissioners regarding the advisability of demolishing Duke Street prison, Glasgow; whether any plans have been prepared to construct a new prison for women on the outskirts of the city; and when it is intended to proceed with the scheme?

Mr. Elliot: Following on a report by the Prisons Department for Scotland, a site at Greenfield Farm near Shettleston was purchased last year for a new prison to replace Duke Street prison. In view of the present pressure upon the building industry in Scotland, of the need for concentrating on the urgent problem of housing, and of the heavy building programme now in hand to the Prisons Department, the preparation of plans and the construction of the new prison are


being deferred for the time being. The work will be begun as soon as alteration of existing circumstances permits.

Mr. Kirkwood: Seeing that the Secretary of State for Scotland has taken great interest in the Empire Exhibition which is to be held at Glasgow this year, will he not do what he can, at any rate, to remove the great black wall of the prison in Duke Street, which is about 200 yards long, and help to brighten the scene for all the visitors whom we are bringing to Glasgow this year?

Mr. Elliot: I will look into that possibility, but, of course, accommodation must be found for the prisoners.

AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of gasmask distribution centres now established in Scotland; and where the distribution centre for Glasgow and district is located?

Mr. Elliot: A regional store has been set up at Galashiels with a total capacity of about 3,000,000 gas masks. Supplies will be transferred from the regional store to the local stores in Scotland so soon as these are provided by local authorities.

Mr. Davidson: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the last part of the question—where the distribution centre for Glasgow and district will be established?

Mr. Elliot: I understand that schemes have not yet been forwarded from the local authorities.

Mr. Davidson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a feeling in Glasgow that the store is to be established in Edinburgh, and that they are very much perturbed in Glasgow, with its important docks and shipyards, that they should be situated so far away from a distribution centre?

Mr. Elliot: I hope that Glasgow will put in its scheme as soon as possible.

PUBLIC ASSISTANCE (GLASGOW).

Mr. Davidson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of persons receiving public assistance relief in Glasgow for the years ended December, 1933 and 1937, respectively?

Mr. Elliot: The total number of persons, including dependants, receiving public assistance relief in Glasgow on 15th December, 1933, was 127,601, and on 15th December, 1937, 101,508.

SMALLHOLDINGS.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many smallholdings are in existence in Scotland; how many groups of holdings exist; and whether he has under consideration schemes of co-operative marketing of holders' produce to assist in improving their economic position?

Mr. Elliot: The last published agricultural returns indicate that there were 49,147 agricultural holdings in Scotland exceeding one acre but not exceeding 50 acres. This figure includes 4,389 smallholdings formed by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland on 524 schemes or groups of holdings. With reference to the last part of the question, the Scottish Agricultural Organisation Society is assisted from State funds for the purpose of encouraging co-operation in the agricultural industry in Scotland, and the services of their organisers are readily available to any group of smallholders who desire to combine in the buying or selling of produce.

Mr. Mathers: May we ask the right hon. Gentleman to give his well-known active consideration to the furthering of schemes of this kind, because if they can be serviceable to groups of unemployed men transferred to holdings they can be equally serviceable to those who are more definitely established in holdings?

Mr. Elliot: I shall be glad to do all I can.

MUNICIPAL HOUSES (COUNCILLOR TENANTS).

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotand whether, in view of the development of municipal housing, he will take steps to amend the law under which councillors who are tenants of municipal houses are prevented from voting on any proposal affecting rents and conditions of tenants?

Mr. Elliot: The position is governed by Section 107 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, by which a member of a local authority is prohibited from voting on a


matter arising under the Housing (Scotland) Acts if it relates to any house, building or land in which he is beneficially interested. I am unable to make any statement as to amendment of the provision in question.

Mr. Kirkwood: Will the Minister reconsider his decision as this is a terrible hardship on working-class representatives, because nobody in Scotland except local authorities are building houses for that type of man and he cannot live anywhere else? In those conditions, will he reconsider his decision so as to enable these men to fulfil the duties for which they are elected? I should like to put this question if the Minister will not reply to the other—will this also apply to Members of Parliament?

Mr. Elliot: It is governed by Statute. It is not a ruling of mine, but a decision of the House.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does it also apply to Members of Parliament living in municipal houses?

Mr. Elliot: I do not think there is any statutory ban in that case.

SCOTTISH NATIONAL DICTIONARY.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware of the financial difficulties against which the scholars and research workers responsible for the production of the Scottish National Dictionary are labouring; that Part 2 of Volume II has been withheld from issue for lack of funds; and whether, as in similar circumstances in 1896 the late Lord Balfour secured a grant from the Royal Bounty Fund, thereby enabling the English Dialect Dictionary to be completed, he will cause inquiry to be made as to any source from which assistance could now be secured to enable research work for the Scottish dictionary to be proceeded with?

Mr. Elliot: I regret the circumstances referred to in the first two parts of the question, but I am afraid that there are no funds at the Government's disposal from which financial assistance towards the cost of preparing and publishing the dictionary could be given. In the circumstances I would suggest that an approach should be made to bodies with funds available to help in such work, and I shall be glad to discuss this possibility with the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Johnston: Will the right hon. Gentleman also discuss with me the latter part of my question which he has not answered?

Mr. Elliot: Certainly.

RATING SYSTEM.

Mr. Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the reiterated contention of associations of house-owners and house-factors in the West of Scotland that the Scottish local rating system whereby the owners are separately rated from the tenants is responsible for the inclusion of the owners' rates in the rent and the subsequent imposition of rates upon rates; to what extent is this system a prime cause of the retardation of house building in Scotland; and whether, in view of the necessity of discovering the real causes of the shortage of houses in Scotland, he will take some early opportunity of making a considered statement on the subject?

Mr. Elliot: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the remaining parts of the question, I doubt whether a statement such as the right hon. Gentleman has in mind would be of advantage, but I am giving the matter consideration. I do not think there is any doubt, however, that at present the main cause of the retardation in house building is the shortage of labour and, to some extent, of material.

Mr. Johnston: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the principal reasons given in Scotland for the shortage of houses is the contention advanced by the associations mentioned in the question, and in view of the importance of this matter, could he or the Lord Advocate make a public statement on the matter?

Mr. Elliot: I am giving the matter consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

AIR ARM.

Captain Peter Macdonald: asked the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the recent decision to give the Navy control of its own air arm, it is proposed to take any steps to obtain


separate control for the Army air arm; and what is the present position in this respect?

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hore-Belisha): No such proposals are under consideration.

Captain Macdonald: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there is sufficient collaboration between the two Services at present?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: There is the closest collaboration.

BREN MACHINE-GUN.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Secretary of State for War, (1) whether he can make some statement to the House regarding the issue of the Bren machine-gun in place of the Lewis gun to Territorial units; and whether all Territorial units will be provided with these before the end of 1938;
(2) whether he is satisfied that there is now an adequate supply of anti-aircraft ammunition in this country;
(3) whether the Government will give an assurance that the new Bren gun will be available for all units, both Regular and Territorial, before the end of 1938?

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present position with regard to the supply of the Bren machine-gun to units of the Army; and whether units are now receiving supplies in accordance with peace-time establishments?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I would refer the hon. Members to the second part of the reply given to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) on 11th November last.

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not rather discouraging and unnecessarily curt to be referred back in that way? We all want to know. I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

HORSE TRANSPORT.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the fact that horse transport is being extensively used in connection with the building up of the new German army;

and whether this fact will be borne in mind before final decisions are taken with regard to the remaining horse transport of the British Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The mechanisation of the horse transport of the Army is now an accomplished fact.

Sir T. Moore: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that conditions may arise in which horses and horse transport may still be required, and is that not considered by the Army Council?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Certainly it was considered before the policy was embarked on. Our small Army requires the maximum of mobility and flexibility.

Mr. Benjamin Smith: Is not this one way to do away with cruelty to horses?

RECRUITMENT.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has made any suggestion to the British Broadcasting Corporation that their assistance should be given to his Department in its task of obtaining recruits for the Regular Army and of increasing enlistments in the Territorial Army; and, if so, with what result?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The British Broadcasting Corporation has given repeated facilities for informing the public of activities in both the Regular and Territorial Armies, for which I would express gratitude.

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of applicants for enlistment in the Regular Army, and the number of these men accepted in each month from January, 1937, till the latest available date?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with my hon. and gallant Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Buchanan: Will it be possible, in circulating this information, to include also the Parliamentary divisions from which the recruits come?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: If the hon. Gentleman will put that question down, I will do my best to supply the information.

Following is the answer:


Months.
Number of applicants for enlistment.
Months.
Number of recruits finally approved.


*Quarter ended 31st March, 1937
14,654
January, 1937
…
3,548
=7,116


February, 1937
…
1,917


March, 1937
…
1,651


*Quarter ended 30th June, 1937
11,663
April, 1937
…
2,197
=5,517


May, 1937
…
1,592


June, 1937
…
1,728


July, 1937
…
…
3,833
July, 1937
…
1,905


August, 1937
…
…
5,136
August, 1937
…
2,466


September, 1937
…
…
4,314
September, 1937
…
2,243


October, 1937
…
…
4,158
October, 1937
…
2,333


November, 1937
…
…
4,354
November, 1937
…
2,635


December, 1937
…
…
3,410
December, 1937
…
1,879


1st to 29th January, 1938
…
7,301
1st to 29th January, 1937
4,547


Totals
…
…
58,823

30,641


*Monthly figures of applicants for those two quarters are not available.

Sir A. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will enumerate the steps taken since the month of January, 1937, to render service in the Regular Army more attractive?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The information for which my hon. and gallant Friend asks is somewhat lengthy. I would refer him to columns 1901 to 1909 of Volume 321 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and for further details I would ask him to await my Estimates for 1938.

Mr. Charles Brown: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his own appointment to the War Office was not one of the steps taken to this end, and are the results satisfactory?

Mr. Day: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of persons recruited into the Army for the three months ended to the last convenient date; and what further steps are now suggested towards the problem of maintaining the strength of the Army?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: During the period 1st November, 1937, to 29th January, 1938, 9,061 recruits for the Regular Army were finally approved, being an increase of 32 per cent. on the figure for the corresponding period of the previous year. As regards the last part of the question, I trust the hon. Member will await the introduction of Army Estimates.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering issuing smarter uniforms?

Mr. Thorne: How many more men does the right hon. Gentleman want to bring the Army up to full strength?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: About 20,000.

Mr. Thorne: Is that all?

MARRIED QUARTERS.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for War how many married soldiers over the age of 26 years are at present in occupation of married quarters; and how many are waiting for vacancies to occur in such quarters?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The answer to the first part of the question is about 15,000, excluding India. The answer to the second part is some 7,000, the great majority of whom are not, however, entitled to quarters.

STAFF COLLEGE (TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Secretary of State for War whether it is proposed to arrange that officers of the Territorial Army shall be permitted to attend the Staff College as students; and, if so, in what numbers and upon what conditions?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: Two vacancies at the Staff College will, in future, be allotted to Territorial Army officers, who will receive the pay and allowances of their rank during periods of attendance at the College. Candidates from the Territorial Army are competing at the entrance examination which will be held in February and March for entrance to the Staff College on 1st January, 1939.

SICK PAY.

Mr. Hills: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give instructions for the payment of sick pay to Engine-driver J. T. Harvey, Shoeburyness Old Rangers, engineer's department, for the period 10th November to 28th December, 1936, to which he is entitled under the regulations, having been continuously employed since 1908, except for a break in 1917 through an accident caused by an Army lorry, but following which he resumed duty on the assurance of his superior officer with seniority and continuous service as from 1908; and whether his attention has been called to the fact that sick pay was granted in this case without question in 1921?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: No, Sir. Employés who entered War Department employment before the introduction of National Health Insurance in 1912 retained as a reserved personal privilege the right to sick pay previously allowed by the regulations, but only as long as their service was continuous. Mr. Harvey, like other employés, continues to be entitled to National Health Insurance benefit during periods of sickness. I am not aware that sick pay was issued to him in 1921. If it was, an error was made.

Mr. Hills: Is the Minister aware that the injury which terminated the man's employment temporarily in 1917 was due to an accident caused by an Army lorry, and that he received an assurance that-after he had recovered from the accident, the conditions under which he was employed prior to the accident would continue, including sick pay, and that he was given sick pay in 1921?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I was unaware that he was given any such assurance, but if the hon. Member will show me that he was, I will promise to look into the matter again.

Mr. Dobbie: In view of the grave violation of the terms of employment of this man and the subsequent difficulties in negotiations, will the Minister be prepared to meet representatives of the man's trade union to discuss the situation?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: I am not prepared to admit that there was any violation, grave or otherwise, but I shall be only too happy to look into the facts if the

hon. Gentleman will substantiate them. He has not sent me any evidence which would substantiate them.

Mr. Dobbie: Will the Minister meet the representatives of the man's trade union?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: That depends upon whether the hon. Gentleman can make out a case. If he will send me the facts, I shall be only too prepared to discuss the subsequent course of action with him.

Mr. Hills: I will communicate with the right hon. Gentleman.

PROMOTION FROM RANKS.

Mr. Sorensen: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask why my question, addressed to the Secretary of State for War, has been detached from this section and put almost at the end of the list, being Question No. 113?

Mr. De la Bère: Are not the questions to the Secretary of State for War unusually uninteresting to-day?

Mr. Sorensen: May I put the question now?

Mr. Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for War the approximate number of serving commissioned officers in the British Army who have risen from the ranks?

Mr. Hore-Belisha: The hon. Member will realise that considerable labour is involved in ascertaining the number of such officers, but I am making inquiries.

ECONOMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL.

Mr. Mander: asked the Prime Minister the present membership of the Economic Advisory Council; and whether any recent report has been received from it making recommendations bearing on the subject of the preparation of schemes of public work for putting into operation immediately in the event of a trade slump?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): The names of members of the Economic Advisory Council and changes in the membership have been published from time to time, but I will send the hon. Member a list of the present non-ministerial members, among whom there have been no recent changes. As regards the


second part of the question, I would remind the hon. Member that, as stated in Treasury Minute of the 27th January, 1930 (Cmd. 3478), the work of the Council is confidential.

Mr. Mander: Will it be possible to know whether the Council has been invited to make a report upon this subject?

The Prime Minister: I think that it would be confidential.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the increase in unemployment figures recently announced, is it not desirable to expedite an examination of this question? Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires me to put that question down?

The Prime Minister: I do not desire the hon. Gentleman to put it down, but I would suggest that if he wants an answer, it would be as well to put it down.

Mr. Riley: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how often this Council meets and when it had its last meeting?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps the hon. Member will put that question down.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE (M. VAN ZEELAND'S REPORT).

Sir N. Grattan-Doyle: asked the Prime Minister whether he can now say when he will be in a position to make a statement respecting the report of M. van Zeeland?

The Prime Minister: The report is receiving the careful examination of the interested Departments, but I am not in a position to say more at present.

Mr. Boothby: Will the House have an opportunity of debating this report?

The Prime Minister: That question has already been asked, and on that occasion I said that there would be an occasion on the Civil Vote on Account.

POWERS' FIGHTING SERVICES (COURTESY VISITS).

Mr. Thurtle: asked the Prime Minister whether the Government will reconsider the present practice of exchanging courtesy visits of the experts of the various fighting services with the experts of other Powers who are necessarily potential enemies of this country?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept the hon. Member's assumption that any nation is necessarily a potential enemy of this country. He may, however, rest assured that such courtesy visits as take place are not contrary to the interests of this country.

Mr. Thurtle: Can the Prime Minister give us one reason why, assuming we may possible be obliged to fight these countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—why we should go out of our way to show them how we propose to do it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether the same principle is not observed when the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. Thurtle) goes overseas, and when the delegates to the Godless Conference are about to come to London?

LICENSED TRADE (REMOVAL LICENCES).

Dr. Salter: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Commissioners of Customs and Excise still lodge objection in the licensing courts against the grant of removal licences where drinking facilities are transferred from an old house to new premises in a modern housing estate; whether objection will be lodged in all such instances, in view of the declared intention of the brewers to apply for removal licences on the largest possible scale; and whether an estimate can be made of the loss to the Exchequer during the last five years of the monopoly value which the owners of licensed premises have avoided paying by these means?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): With regard to the first and second parts of the question, the Commissioners make representations in suitable cases as to the manner in which licensing justices should exercise the discretion given them by the law, but in some instances it is obvious that representations would be either nugatory or inexpedient. With regard to the third part, I am afraid that information is not available for such an estimate.

Dr. Salter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in three cases this year in Liverpool, the Treasury lost £26,000, £20,000, and £24,000, respectively, in monopoly value?

Sir J. Simon: I was not aware of that, and if the hon. Member will give me the instances to which he refers, I shall be glad to look into them.

Dr. Salter: Is the right hon. Gentleman also aware that in one particular case the evidence in court was to the effect that the owners would refrain from asking for compensation from the corporation if the corporation would assist them to dodge payment of monopoly value to the Treasury?

FOREIGN ISSUES.

Colonel Wedgwood: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in carrying out the new rules as to the investment of British money in foreign ventures, he will attempt to secure the co-operation of the American Government, so that any action might be taken together and not in competition, and so that for the transfer of interest, dividends, or profits from the foreign territory to Britain or America, the investors might have such joint support as the two Powers, acting jointly, may be able to give?

Sir J. Simon: I would remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that foreign investments, whether by nationals of this country or of the United States of America, are undertaken by private initiative and not by either Government, so that the question of co-operation between Governments in making such investments does not arise. In cases where our own investors need support from His Majesty's Government of the kind indicated in the second part of the question, it is the existing practice of His Majesty's Government to co-operate with other Governments similarly concerned, and there is also co-operation between the Council of Foreign Bondholders and similar bodies abroad including the American Foreign Bondholders Protective Council.

Colonel Wedgwood: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statement he made the other day as to the Government's authorisation of investments of British money in enterprises in foreign countries is not a new departure where the Government are taking a certain responsibility?

Sir J. Simon: No, the position, as the right hon. and gallant Member will recall,

was that under the arrangements previously in force the committee presided over by Lord Kennet offered advice to the Government on the transactions defined in their terms of reference, and when those terms of reference were modified, it was thought desirable to state the modification to the House.

Colonel Wedgwood: But does not that involve a certain amount of Government responsibility?

Sir J. Simon: The Government take no responsibility at all. The question is merely whether or not it is desirable in the general interest that that particular class of investment should take place.

Mr. De la Bère: Who are the financiers who initiate Government policy?

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Lieut.-Commander Tufnell: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has considered the practicability of abolishing or reducing the Entertainments Duty in respect of the payment for entry to cinemas where an all-British programme is being shown?

Sir J. Simon: This suggestion has been made before, but it has not been found possible to adopt it.

Mr. Hall-Caine: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can make any statement as to the beneficial effect of the reduction which was granted two years ago in the rates of Entertainments Duty upon living entertainment; and whether he will consider an extension of this scheme in the near future?

Sir J. Simon: Official data are not available, but I believe it is generally admitted that the reduction of duty granted in 1935 to "living" entertainments has had an encouraging effect. With regard to the second part of the question, I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the present rise in the exchange value of sterling is the result of the policy controlling the Exchange Equalisation Account; and whether, in view of the


more intense competition which the British producer will have to meet both in the home and overseas markets as a result of the over-valuation of sterling, the future policy of the account will be directed to preventing the sterling rate rising above the level at which it stood when the tripartite agreement was concluded?

Sir J. Simon: The answer to both parts of the question is in the negative. It is not the function of the Exchange Equalisation Account to determine the exchange value of sterling, but to check undue fluctuations therein in accordance with Section 24 (3) of the Finance Act, 1932.

Mr. Craven-Ellis: In checking the fluctuations is more consideration paid to the currency speculator than to British industry?

Sir J. Simon: The matter is considered in relation to general public policy. Violent fluctuations, I should think, are not to the advantage of anyone.

Mr. Bellenger: May I ask whether the Exchange Equalisation Account pays no regard to the exchange itself apart from the fluctuations, and whether there is any arrangement under the Fund for preventing the exchange either depreciating or appreciating too much?

Sir J. Simon: The duty served by the Exchange Equalisation Account is defined in the Act of Parliament.

COAL MINING ROYALTIES (TAXES).

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the estimated loss to the revenue in Income Tax, Sur-tax and Death Duties which will be incurred through the nationalisation of royalties under Part I of the Coal Bill if it becomes law?

Sir J. Simon: It is not anticipated that there will be on the whole any loss of income Tax at the standard rate, or of Death Duties, as a result of the unification of royalties. As regards Sur-tax, my hon, and gallant Friend is aware that the produce of the tax is not earmarked in relation to particular sources of income, and moreover the effect in this respect of unification must depend upon the nature of the investment made by the compen-

sated proprietors of the compensation money.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is it possible to reduce a man's income by half without losing any money in Income Tax?

Sir J. Simon: The amount paid in compensation under the Coal Bill is a capital sum, and it will be for the receiver to invest the sum as he thinks fit. It may produce him a less return, or it may produce him a larger return.

Mr. Thorne: Will not the royalty owners when they are paid out invest their money in some other way and then the Exchequer will get it back by way of Income Tax?

ESTATE DUTY.

Sir William Davison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the serious objections in the national interest to the levying of Death Duties in a lump sum on the death of a taxpayer, especially in the case of agricultural estates; and whether he will appoint a representative committee to consider and report as to the loss, if any, likely to be occasioned to the revenue in the event of taxpayers being allowed to take out insurances in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the estimated amount of Estate Duty payable on their estate on death, such insurances not to be included in such estate except in so far as any such insurance might be in excess of the sum required to meet Death Duties; or, in the alternative, as to any loss to the Exchequer by taxpayers being permitted to make annual payments to the Chancellor of the Exchequer during lifetime to be accumulated with interest in respect of duties payable on death, such accumulations to the extent of the duty not to be included in the deceased's estate?

Sir J. Simon: The estimation of the cost to the Exchequer of any proposal for relief from taxation is essentially a budgetary matter that must rest with the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the day, who has the resources of the Revenue Departments at his command for the purpose. The particular form of relief to which the question refers, namely relief from Estate Duty in respect of life assurance moneys—a relief which I may observe would be general in character


and would necessarily cover a much wider field than the particular case of agricultural land—is in fact a form of relief that has been frequently discussed in Finance Bill debates of recent years, in the course of which estimates of cost have been furnished. My predecessors in office have consistently rejected proposals of this kind as being unsound in principle and too costly to the Exchequer.

Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the estimates given by the Treasury in Finance Bill debates have been very varying amounts? Does he not think that, having regard to the great importance of this matter, it would be desirable to have an independent committee of inquiry in order to take evidence as to the various schemes that are suggested and which those who suggest them consider would not involve the Treasury in a loss, especially as the Income Tax rebate would not apply to them?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend will recall that he himself has had considerable correspondence with and made various representations to the Treasury on this subject, and I can assure him that I have myself examined it with a great deal of care. I should be very glad at any time to receive further contributions and suggestions, but I think, as I explained just now, the estimate as to the results of the suggested change must be the responsibility of the proper Department.

OLD AGE PENSIONS.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the increased cost of living, he will receive a deputation from the Scottish Old Age Pensioners' Association on the question of increased old age pensions?

Sir J. Simon: I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by a deputation such as that suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: Arising out of the answer, and in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday that he would receive a deputation from ex-service men, is it not desirable that the Chancellor should receive a deputation from old age pensioners, in view of the very serious difficulties confronting them at the present time?

Sir J. Simon: I assure the hon. Member that I have considered this, and I have had correspondence with him about it. I do not think there is any other answer which I could possibly give, because I do not think in existing circumstances a deputation would serve any useful purpose.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the common practice of Ministers to receive deputations of business people when they are asking for relief, and why does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to see a deputation of old age pensioners?

Sir J. Simon: There is no discrimination of that sort against a deputation being received, in the case of representations from any quarter, by any Minister; but I am bound to point out that a matter of this sort is governed by finance, and I do not think to receive a deputation would be useful.

Mr. G. Griffiths: Is it not a fact that these people have been slipping down the bannister ever since the right hon. Gentleman took office?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Sir A. Knox: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the percentage of vacancies in Government Departments which have been filled by the appointment of retired ex-soldiers in each of the years 1934, 1935, 1936 and 1937?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): I regret that I am not in a position to furnish my hon. and gallant Friend with information in the form which he desires. I am, however, circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the total non-industrial staffs employed in Government Departments and the number of ex-service men as at 1st April in the four years in question. Separate figures for ex-soldiers are not available as, in general, no distinction in the matter of candidature is made between ex-soldiers, ex-sailors and ex-airmen.

Sir A. Knox: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give any figures as to the extent to which the Government's pledge to give employment to old soldiers has been carried out? Can he not tell me the number of old soldiers who have been given appointments every year in Government offices?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: Perhaps my hon. and gallant Friend will study the table, which gives information as regards ex-Service men in general, and if he has any other points which he wishes to raise, I am ready to discuss them with him.

Following is the statement:


Year.
Ex-Servicemen.
Total Staffs.


1934
161,500
320,200


1935
168,000
336,300


1936
171,500
349,600


1937
177,200
369,800

IMPERIAL PREFERENCE (TRINIDAD).

Mr. Benn: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the money value of Imperial Preference to the oil industry in Trinidad for any given period?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, under a misapprehension as there is no preferential rate of duty in respect of hydrocarbon oils imported from Empire countries.

Mr. Benn: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can form any estimate in money terms of the advantage accruing to the sugar industry in Trinidad from the operation of Imperial Preference?

Lieut.-Colonel Colville: The amount of the preferential rebate on sugar and molasses consigned from Trinidad and Tobago, and entered for home consumption in the United Kingdom, during the calendar year 1937 was approximately £530,000. Separate figures for Trinidad are not available.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put.
That the Proceedings on the Coal Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 253: Noes, 127.

Division No. 86.]
AYES.
[3.46 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Channon, H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dunglass, Lord


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Christie, J. A.
Eckersley. P. T.


Assheton, R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Ellis, Sir G.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Balfour. Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Elmley, Viscount


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Colfox, Major W. P.
Emery, J. F.


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Colville. Lt.-Col Rt. Hon. D. J.
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Errington, E.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Bernays, R. H.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Everard, W. L.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Findlay, Sir E.


Boulton, W. W.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Cranborne, Viscount
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Brass, Sir W.
Critchley, A.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.


Briscoe. Capt. R. G.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Brocklebank Sir Edmund
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Granville, E. L.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Cross, R. H.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crossley, A. C.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Bull, B. B.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Burghley, Lord
Davison, Sir W. H.
Grimston, R. V.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dawson, Sir P.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Butler, R. A.
De Chair, S. S.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Caine, G. R. Hall-
Do la Bère, R.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Denville, Alfred
Hambro, A. V.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Dodd, J. S.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Doland, G. F.
Harbord, A.


Cazalet, Theima (Islington, E.)
Drewe, G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)




Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hepworth, J.
Moreing, A. C.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Morgan, R. H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Higgs, W. F
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Holmes, J. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Storey, S.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hulbert, N. J.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hunter, T.
Patrick, C. M.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Peake, O.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Peat, C. U.
Tate, Mavis C.


Keeling, E. H.
Perkins. W. R. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Petherick, M.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Pilkington, R.
Train, Sir J.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Kimball, L.
Porritt, R. W.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Radford, E. A.
Turton, R. H.


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wakefield, W. W.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rankin, Sir R.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Warrender, Sir V.


Lewis, O.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Liddall, W. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Lipson, D. L.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Lloyd. G. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


McCorquodale, M. S.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wise, A. R.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Macdonald, Capt P. (Isle of Wight)
Salmon, Sir J.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Salt. E. W.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Samuel M. R. A.
Wragg, H.


Magnay, T.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Sandys, E. D.



Marsden, Commander A.
Scott, Lord William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Selley, H. R.
Captain Hope and Captain


Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Shakespeare, G. H.
Dugdale.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Gardner, B. W.
Leslie, J. R.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G. M
Logan, D. G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lunn, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Attlee, Rt. Hon C. R.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
McEntee, V. La T.


Banfield, J. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maclean, N.


Barr, J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mander, G. le M.


Batey, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Marklew, E.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Mathers, G.


Benson, G.
Hayday, A.
Maxton, J.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Messer, F.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Milner, Major J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Buchanan, G.
Holdsworth, H.
Muff, G.


Cape, T.
Hollins, A.
Naylor, T. E.


Chater, D.
Hopkin. D.
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cluse, W. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Oliver, G. H.


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Parker, J.


Cove, W. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Parkinson, J. A.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Daggar, C.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Price, M. P.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Pritt, D. N.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Quibell, D. J. K


Day, H.
Kirby, B. V.
Riley, B.


Dobbie, W.
Kirkwood, D.
Ritson, J.


Dunn. E. (Rother Valley)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Ede, J. C.
Lathan, G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Lawson, J. J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Leach, W.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Gallacher, W.
Lee, F.
Seely, Sir H. M.







Sexton, T. M.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Shinwell, E.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Westwood, J.


Simpson, F. B.
Thorne, W.
White, H. Graham


Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)
Thurtle, E.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)
Tinker, J. J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Smith, E. (Stoke)
Tomlinson, G.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Smith, T. (Normanton)
Walkden, A. G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Sorensen, R. W.
Walker, J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Stephen, C.
Watkins, F. C.



Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Watson, W. McL.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Gharleton and Mr. Groves.


Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

PREVENTION AND TREATMENT OF BLINDNESS (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, not amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Friday, 6th May.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Orders of the Day — COAL BILL.

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 7th February.]

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

The following new Clause stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. STANLEY:

Persons to act for purposes of Part I in case of death or incapacity.
In a case in which a person by or to whom under this Part of this Act any notice is required or authorised to be given, information furnished, claim made, or any other act or thing done, dies or is, or becomes, incapable of acting, references in the relevant provisions of this Act to that person shall be construed as including references to a person substituted for that person in accordance with rules made by the Board of Trade.

The Chairman: I understand the right hon. Gentleman does not propose at this stage to move the first new Clause standing in his name?

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Oliver Stanley): indicated assent.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Limitation as to information required to be given under the Registration Act.)

(1) Where it appears to a person, who is required to give information for the purposes of the Registration Act of the circumstances of a holding relevant to any matter particulars whereof may be registered under that Act, that complete information thereof would include information of no material importance for valuation purposes as to rights annexed to coal or a mine that affect adversely numerous small parcels of land, or would include any other information of no material importance for valuation purposes, he shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of that Act as to the information to be given with respect to that matter if he gives with respect thereto such information as the Commission indicate to be in their opinion of material importance for valuation purposes, notwithstanding that the information does not extend to all the circumstances of the holding relevant to that matter.
(2) The preceding sub-section shall have effect in a case in which a person gives or has given with respect to any such matter as aforesaid such information as the Board of Trade have, before the commencement of this Act, indicated to be in their opinion of material importance.
(3) Registered particulars, or draft particulars settled by the Commission, shall not be open to objection as being incomplete, or

as omitting relevant particulars, by reason of their not recording any circumstances of a holding being circumstances information whereof is of no material importance for valuation purposes.
(4) Regard shall be had to the foregoing provisions of this section in determining whether any costs the payment whereof is claimed under the Registration Act were reasonably incurred.—[Captain Crookshank.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.58 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This proposed new Clause is put forward in connection with the Registration Act passed last summer. The object of that Act was to allow owners of this kind of property to start the preliminary steps of registration, but, as I said at the time, there was no objective stated. Now there is a definite objective under the Bill which we are discussing, and that is that registration is the first step towards valuation, valuation leading eventually to compensation and the property passing. The experience we have had so far is that, from the point of view of valuation, there might be, within a strict interpretation of the Registration Act, a great deal of information which would have to be registered but which would really be unnecessary in order to be able to form a proper valuation. The sort of instance I have in mind is one in which an estate has been cut up into a great number of parcels of land, all of them with the same sort of deeds. It seems hardly necessary that every single document should be registered, because that would entail a great deal of work and expense, if it is clear that the absence of some of those details will not really affect the position from a valuation point of view. In those cases it might be quite enough, when the valuer came to do his work, to take general evidence, and if such cases should arise a person will be deemed to have complied with the provisions of the previous Act by not giving all the information which is there required. If he takes advantage of that he will be indemnified against possible complaint because he has not supplied everything, and therefore has fallen into error. It is a Clause to the advantage of everyone concerned.

4.1 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I rise only to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that


in accordance with the new Clause the Commission will have the whole of the information that is necessary. From the reading of Sub-section (1) it seems possible that a good deal of material information may be missing, and that information, I understand, will be information which will be material to assessing the value of the particular interest by the regional valuation committee. Presumably the Commission will want to have before them the whole of the materials that would be before these regional valuation committees. I am not clear that Sub-section (1) will give that access, through the registration, to the whole of that material. The Sub-section says:
complete information thereof would include information of no material importance for valuation purposes as to rights annexed to coal or a mine that affect adversely numerous small parcels of land, or would include any other information of no material importance for valuation purposes, he shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of that Act as to the information to be given with respect to that matter if he gives with respect thereto such information as the Commission indicate to be in their opinion of material importance for valuation purposes, notwithstanding that the information does not extend to all the circumstances of the holding relevant to that matter.
If some of these ancillary rights are to be acquired and the Commission are to be able to estimate what the value of those ancillary rights is, they will obviously want to know, whether small or large parcels of land are affected, what their incidence is. I should have thought that, prima facie, they would have wanted the fullest possible information as to the whole of the effect of these rights before they could come to a decision as to whether they would acquire them. We are anxious that there should not be any limitation which would make it impossible for the Commission to have at their disposal the fullest material in order that they can arrive at a judgment as to whether they can exercise their rights. Will the Minister give us an assurance that between now and the next stage he will look into the matter from the point of view of the Commission?

Captain Crookshank: I quite appreciate the point of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am quite satisfied that what he has in mind is covered. No doubt he will realise that the purpose of this Clause is really to avoid the unnecessary duplication of information.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I want to refer to something quite different, and that is to slovenly ways in legislation. There is passed a Statute, the Registration Act. It is then found that there may be circumstances in which it is inconvenient to apply that Act rigidly and completely. The proper thing to do there, as a matter of clean and tidy legislation, is to amend the Act. But the draftsman does not want to do that; he wants to put in another Act a provision that if you do not obey the other Act you shall be deemed to have obeyed the other Act. I am one of those who have to face this sort of thing day by day in the Courts. At least I ask from the Minister a promise that he will not do it again.

Captain Crookshank: ; I do not know of anything else which we are proposing to unify in this sort of way.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Sinking or opening of new mines.)

No new mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland after the passing of this Act, unless the owner of the mineral rights therein has first obtained from the Commission an order authorising the sinking or opening of such mine. In the event of the Commission refusing such authorisation to the owner thereof the owner shall be entitled, as from the date of his application to the Commission for such authority, to the payment of interest upon the sum of money awarded to him in respect of his claim under Sections six and seven of this Act as if the date of such application had been the vesting date under this Act provided that he shall satisfy the Commission of his bona fide intention and ability to sink or open such mine before he shall become entitled to any such payment of interest.—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.7 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
On the face of it this new Clause is concerned with the question of the liberty of owners of mines or royalties to make new sinkings in the period which elapses between the passing of this Bill and the taking over of the royalties by the Commission. It purports to lay down certain provisions which shall apply in the event of an owner not being able to get permission to sink a pit which he would otherwise have done during that intervening period. We are not wedded to the


precise terms of the Clause, if there are more convenient words in which to frame it, but we are very anxious to raise the question of what the Commission is going to do by way of planning the coal resources of the country. Obviously if the Commission is going to utilise its ownership of the royalties in order to try to bring some orderliness into the production of coal, it is essential that at the earliest possible moment it should get the most complete control over the question of the opening of new mines and pits; otherwise it may be that for the purpose of getting better compensation, for the purpose of an owner putting himself into the position of being able to obtain a compulsory lease from the Commission as the owner of the royalty of a mine, in various districts steps might be taken, even before or immediately after the passage of this Bill, to open up new mines which would alter the relationship between coal production in the various districts and between the various districts.
I am aware of the various provisions with regard to quotas and so on which have their influence on the position, but they do not in any way prevent owners from opening mines now. It would be entirely wrong, when you are contemplating a new system of the ownership of minerals, a new system for the granting of leases, if in the intervening period, after full notice has been given that that system is to come into operation, individual owners, from the point of view of improving their own position for the future, should be able to take action and spend large sums of money which would be contrary to the plans which the Commission itself would have when it came into the full ownership of the minerals. Once the Commission gets control of the royalties it will be for the Commission to say whether in any particular instance a new mine or pit is to be sunk. I imagine that that is one of the methods the Commission will use for planning the coal production of the country. That is one of the main objectives of this so-called unification of royalties, or nationalisation as we call it.
Unless there is some such provision as this in the Bill it seems to me that we shall be laying the Commission open to very grave embarrassment, and we shall be tending to defeat the very object which we all presumably have in mind in the

unification of royalties. We are anxious to find out from the Minister what his views are both as regards this specific question of planning and also as regards the wider question of how the Commission are going to use their powers to try to bring order into the production of coal. It might be that a proposal would be made to stop such a thing as the development of the Kent coalfield while there was plenty of capacity for production in other parts of the country, or it might be that a completely new coalfield could be developed before the Commission came into power. Such a coalfield could be started and then it would be necessary to go right through with it. Once a mine is started you cannot stop it economically; once the capital is put up in an area where it is said that up to the present coal has not been fully proved, people may say that for the purpose of compensation they prefer to put down a pit. They are perfectly entitled to do it, and they may think that by that method they would get a much larger share of the £66,000,000.

Mr. Ritson: I beg to second the Motion.

The Clause is a common-sense proposal, and after the exposition of my hon. and learned Friend it would be sheer waste of time for me to speak at any length upon it. We know how often there have been attempts to develop a coalfield as a result of which someone has to be compensated.

4.13 p.m.

Sir Hugh Seely: I hope the Minister will not accept this new Clause, and for two reasons. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Second Reading ended by saying that if anyone sank a pit now he would be doing it merely to get some of the £66,000,000. I can assure him that no one will sink a pit, with all the costs involved, in order to prove a claim greater than is justified to a share of that £66,000,000. This is really an extreme Socialistic Clause. It may be that the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have this power in the Bill. It may come some day and this may be a step towards it, but as matters stand I cannot see how you can say that anyone is not to sink a new pit who has a lease of the coal now and that merely because you pass a Bill providing that the royalties are to be unified you are to be able to say that you will stop the whole industry progressing.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) has failed to appreciate what we have in mind here. Apart from this new Clause it would be possible for a colliery company, in conjunction with certain owners, at once to start boring operations, and when they had discovered any coal in an area they could cut the sod and start sinking a shaft. I rose to get an explanation from my hon. and learned Friend why Wales is not mentioned in this proposed new Clause, and whether it would not be possible to delete the words relating to England and Scotland and leave things as they are in that regard.

4.16 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Before I answer the hon. and learned Gentleman and give a detailed explanation upon the point which he raised, may I just say that I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Clause? In one phrase the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was desirable that the Commission should get control at the earliest possible date of all these matters regarding the property of which it will be the owner. The earliest possible date is that at which the property will actually vest in the Commission, in 1942. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman's point to be that somebody might now, for the purpose of getting more compensation, put down a plant, prove the existence of coal and sink a pit. I do not think I am misrepresenting him. All I can say is that the Clause deals only with what happens after the passing of the Act. The property is to be valued on the valuation date, which is 1st January, 1939. From such knowledge of the industry as I have, it seems to me quite impracticable to start the process of getting leases, boring and proving coal and then sinking a shaft. It could not affect the valuation at 1st January, 1939.
Perhaps that was not really the point to which he wanted to direct our attention. His point is that, by and large, the Commission will be owner of this coal, and that it is therefore desirable that the Commission should have in its mind a sort of general planning for the future. He asked me to say whether I could tell him how the Commission would use its powers in the future in this matter, but I am afraid that until the Commission exists

no one can get an answer to that question. The Commission will, of course, be bound by what we have already passed in the Bill, that they shall, under Clause 2, deal with their property,
in such manner consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency, and better organisation of the coal-mining industry.
The Commission is bound, under Clause 2—it is so long since we were on that Clause that some of us may have forgotten it—to pay attention to any general directions given by the Minister in the national interest. I cannot answer, therefore, as to what may or may not be the intentions of the Commission.
The reason why a proposal of this kind, obviously, cannot be accepted, is that the Committee have accepted the arrangement of the Bill, which is that between the passage of the Bill and the final vesting date, the present owners of the property remain in the enjoyment thereof, and that it would therefore be contrary to what we have already passed if we inserted something of this kind now. The broad principle remains that after the valuation date, as long as they do not do anything to deteriorate the property under Clause 9, which I am sure hon. Members will remember, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent them from improving the property. I should think that improvements were desirable. The principle is that until the property actually passes to the Commission, the Commission has no locus standi in the matter.
It is fanciful to imagine that in the short period before the vesting date—it is short compared to the length of time that this property is to be in the hands of the new owners—we are in the least likely to see the development of entirely new coalfields about which nobody knows anything now. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the opening up of the Kent coalfield, but that has a history of many years, and it has not yet gone very far. To imagine that some sort of startling development of that kind is likely to occur before 1942, to the detriment of the Commission later on, is a little wide of the mark. A suggestion of that kind is out of line with the policy which the Committee have already adopted in the Clauses which we have passed. While I much sympathise with the hon. and learned Gentleman's point


of view—it is expressed in a Clause in the Bill which we discussed last Friday that control should pass this year, and is not in this Bill—it is not possible for me to accept the Clause, and I hope that the Committee will resist it.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: The purpose of the new Clause which has been proposed is to find out what sort of powers the Commission will have under the Bill and under the explanation which the Secretary for Mines has given. I understand that, under the Bill, existing leases will be taken over by the Commission on the vesting date in about four years' time, and that they have no power to vary those leases. There will, therefore, be one limitation already in force upon the Commission in regard to existing leases. If an arrangement has been made with any landlord by which a colliery owner can sink pits and establish new collieries, that power will remain in the hands of the colliery owner under the lease, and it will not be within the power of the Commission to refuse to agree to a development of that kind. To do so would be a violation of the existing lease.
I want to know whether I have the approval of the Secretary for Mines thus far. If it is apparent that under existing leases a colliery owner has already entered into an arrangement by which he can sink new collieries as and when it suits him so to do, that power will still be in the hands of the coalowner after the vesting date. Are we clear about that? May we have the hon. and gallant Gentleman's reply?

Captain Crookshank: I realise that it is such a long time since we were on that Clause that memories have to be refreshed. Existing leases are safeguarded.

Mr. Bevan: I thought that was so, but in order that we may all be clear about what we are doing, that admission was necessary. If that be so, and the Commission are bound by the character of existing leases, there is nothing in the Bill at the moment to prevent colliery companies from varying in the meantime leases that do not contain that power at present. Have I the hon. and gallant Gentleman's approval to that point? In this interim period, if a colliery owner, anticipating the powers to be conferred

upon, the Commission, does not possess leases which give him that right, there is nothing in the Bill to prevent him from varying those leases so that when the Commission inherits those leases in four years' time, it will inherit leases with all those conditions attached. Have I the approval of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to that statement? If that be the case, I would like to know from the hon. and gallant Gentleman what powers the Commission would have to control the development of existing coalfields. The effective control will be in the hands of the colliery owners, because it will be a part of the leases which the Commissioners will have taken over that the colliery owners are able to sink new collieries if and when they like, extending over the coal of which they have the lease.
We are referred to a previous part of the Bill, and are told it is one of the main advantages of unification of royalties that the Commission will have the direction and orderly development of coalfields, but it is apparent that the Bill strips the Commission of the power to do so. Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with what I say? If he does, I would like him to tell the Committee what will be the power vested in the Commission to control the development of the coalfields, because such control will depend upon the leases.

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman seems to be developing an argument against the safeguarding of leases, which has already been passed by the House on Second Reading.

Mr. Bevan: I bow to your Ruling, Sir Dennis, but I was taking up a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely), who referred to what he described as the extensive powers for which we were asking. I admit that they are extensive, but I submit that they are necessary. In the four-and-a-half years between now and the vesting date, these powers would give the Commission at least the right to authorise or deny the opening up of new collieries. In so far as the proposed new Clause would do that, it would vary that part of the Bill where, in the interim period, the Commission can vary existing leases. After that date has been reached, the part of the Bill which prevents the Commission from interfering with existing


leases would, I admit, resume its power, but in the meantime very important influences may be brought to bear upon the coal industry. That is why I think that the powers we are asking are too limited and ought to be more extensive. Our schemes for the coal industry are more ambitious than those of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and we ask for this power for four-and-a-half years.
We were told on the Second Reading of the Bill that one of the principal claims made for the unification of mining royalties was that the ownership of those royalties in one pair of hands and one centre of authority would, by virtue of the ownership itself, enable the owner, the State, to impose orderly development upon an industry which is universally admitted to have developed in an anarchic and anti-social way. Now we are told by the Secretary for Mines that there is nothing in the Bill which will not enable the existing owners of coal to strip the unification of mining royalties from any of its significance in that regard. I assume that, if that is so, it is very questionable indeed whether the House of Commons ought to waste its time in unifying mining royalties. The financial aspects of the matter have not commended themselves to us, and now the organisation itself is rendered nugatory because of the powers vested in the leaseholders.
It is sheer nonsense for the hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that in the meantime, in the years which intervene between now and the vesting date, nothing important can happen. Only the extraordinary tradition in this country which lays it down that no Minister shall take up any office except it be one in regard to which he has an entire ignorance would have allowed him to make a statement of that sort. I do not blame the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it is the misfortune of this Committee that it has to put up with that fact. You can go a very long way towards sinking a pit in three or four years; you can sink quite a formidable pit in that time, and it might easily pay an existing owner, if he could not get his landlord to vary his lease, to sink a shaft. I understand the desire of the hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed that he should not interfere with his liberty in this matter, but it is the contention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that one of the virtues of this Bill is that it interferes with the

liberty of private economic adventurers like the hon. Baronet. We were informed that it is just because of hon. Members like himself exercising the rights that they have that the industry has been brought into its present anarchic state, so that the hon. Gentleman is rebuked by his own Government. It therefore hardly lies in his mouth and in the mouths of other owners like himself to claim that this is an unwarranted interference with their liberties, because it is just that interference that the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was necessary, and it is just that interference that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has told us that these provisions do not empower.
It is true that after the vesting date it will be impossible for new coalfields to be developed without the permission of the Commission, although, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, a great deal can be done between now and then to commence the exploitation of a new coalfield, but the main trouble is that we have no power to control the extension of the periphery of existing coalfields. One of the most stupid things that has happened in the last two years has been the enormous development of new coalfields, even in the Midlands, at the expense of some of the older coalfields in this country. In that way assets have been wasted, and mines are derelict in South Wales, in Durham, in Scotland, and indeed all over the country, very largely as a consequence of the fact that instead of there being intelligent development, new enterprises, of which the hon. Baronet is happy to own one, formidable commercial successes, exploiting rich seams of coal, have been allowed to develop, and the counterpart of the thriving properties that hon. Members like the hon. Baronet possess is the disused shafts and mines of South Wales and Durham. That is a wholesale wastage of national assets.
I hope I have shown the Committee that by resisting this new Clause and by refusing, although I cannot argue that, to limit the liberty of the coalowners in other parts of the Bill, the hon. and gallant Gentleman in facts strips the Commission of any effective control over future colliery development and shows that this Bill, as we always said it was, is a facade behind which is nothing but emptiness.

4.37 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I did not expect the Secretary for Mines to accept this Clause. The reason why I was anxious that it should be moved was in order to demonstrate the fact that the Government would not accept it, because it shows the complete hollowness of their professions that this Bill is designed to do anything as regards the orderly planning of the coal industry of this country. Let me remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman of two Clauses, of which I am sure he is quite aware—first of all, Clause 12, under which a person carrying on the business of coal mining immediately before the vesting date who is then beneficially entitled to the fee simple in coal gets thereby an absolute right to a lease of that coal, a right which he would not get unless he satisfied both those things. It is surely worth while somebody opening a pit, starting a coal mine, in order to get that right under Clause 12, which he cannot otherwise get.
In a new area, or in a fringe area, if an owner starts to develop a seam and carry on the business of coal mining, he gets, under this Bill, the very valuable right of a perpetual lease, which he cannot otherwise get; and it is the commonest thing possible in Acts of this kind, where you are dealing with property and compensation, to stabilise the circumstances at the date when the Act is passed. It is very common indeed, anyway to stabilise the circumstances as at the date when the compensation is to be payable or when the valuation for compensation is to be made. The extraordinary thing about this Bill is that you are assessing compensation upon the £66,000,000, upon the basis of an Act already passed three years ago. You are then going to take the property for which you are paying the price only four years hence, and in the intermediate period, apart from wastage of the property, you are allowing it to be altered just at the will of the people from whom you are taking it.
I think there has never been a Bill before which has permitted that where a property is to be taken. The most usual form, of course, is to give the right of entry immediately, whenever it is wanted, and thereafter to allow compensation and so on to be fixed. That is not happening in this case, and what we are asking in this Clause is to stabilise the conditions up to the vesting date, just

as Clause 15 of the Bill stabilises the conditions after the vesting date, because after the vesting date it is not lawful for anyone other than the Commission or a person authorised by them to search or bore for coal. So that that is stabilised after the vesting date, and if it is necessary to stabilise it after the vesting date, there can, in our opinion, be no conceivable argument in favour of allowing people to do that in the period that elapses between the passing of the Act and the vesting date. Indeed, not only can there be no argument, but any person or Government concerned with the orderly planning of an industry must inevitably take steps to prevent it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say that this does not affect anything and is not necessary. The hon. Member for Berwick-on-Tweed (Sir H. Seely) has let the cat out of the bag sufficiently well to demonstrate that that is not the truth. He realises quite well that he, among others, is going to try and get away with it in the next four years, and that is why he is so indignant at being stopped.

Sir H. Seely: indicated dissent.

Sir S. Cripps: Is not that the reason for the hon. Baronet's indignation? Does he suggest—

Sir H. Seely: All that I said was that I did not think anyone would go to the expense of sinking a pit during this very short period merely to get a part of the £66,000,000, which the hon. and learned Gentleman said was the reason for moving this Clause.

Sir S. Cripps: I said that that was one of the reasons, and I pointed out how under Clause 12 that reason, among others, may operate. It may operate very strongly, and it may also operate on the question of valuation. The valuation of an unproved mineral is a very different thing indeed from the valuation of a proved mineral. I was talking the other day to a person who manages very large sections of property, and I asked him, just out of curiosity, what he had done as regards the Coal Bill. He replied that as far as he could ascertain he had put in a claim for all the property they owned in England, in the hope that there was coal under it. I told him that I did not imagine he would get much out of it, and he said he did not suppose he would, but that he would have a shot at it. If


his position had been that he had proved his claim in one of these areas, his position as regards compensation would be entirely different. It is obvious that in those circumstances it would pay a person to—

Mr. Stanley: He has not got the whole four years in which to do it. He has got to do it by 1st January next, and, therefore, he has got to be pretty quick about it.

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that in the first instance we put a much earlier date into this Clause, but we were told that it was out of order, and therefore we altered it to bring it into order. We should like to have stopped all this immediately notice was given at the last General Election that the Government were going to unify mining royalties. That is when it ought to have stopped. When the hon. Baronet below the Gangway here says that this is a drastic Socialist step that must be resisted at all costs, I would point out that one does not resist steps which do not affect one. That seems to be fairly conclusive, and, therefore, we have the position that this is a step that is going to affect the royalty owners and the coalowners. How is it going to affect them? It is not going to affect them to their disadvantage, or else they would not oppose it; it is going to affect them, if they are allowed to do this, to their advantage. Anything that affects them in those four years to their advantage will be to the loss of the Commission, because the compensation will be based upon the receipts of three past years and the Commission should be entitled to any improvement after the date the compensation is fixed.
The coalowners and royalty owners want to keep the advantage to themselves, although the compensation is based on the advantage that they had three years ago. They want to have it both ways. We see in this a very strong additional reason, which has been completely proved out of the mouth of the hon. Baronet, why a Clause of this sort should be put in to protect the Coal Commission. We shall certainly, as a result of the action of the Government, be entitled to say, as we shall say, in the country that all the Government's professions about the planning and the reorganisation of the

coal industry based upon the ownership and the unification of royalties is just eye-wash. We always thought that it was eye-wash, and now that is proved.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I have been rather less fortunate than the hon. Baronet opposite in being able to comprehend the meaning of the new Clause. As I read the Clause it is absolutely meaningless. I cannot see any point in putting meaningless Amendments into a Bill which is already extremely difficult to understand. The object of the Clause, as I understand it, is to prevent new mines being sunk in the next few years without the permission of the Coal Commission. Am I right so far?

Sir S. Cripps: Right.

Mr. Peake: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member. Let us follow the means proposed to be employed to achieve this object. The new Clause intends to place a restriction upon the lessee of the coal, but in point of fact what it does is to place a restriction upon the owner. Every area which is at all likely to be developed in the next 15 or 20 years is already, and has been for probably a good many years, in lease to a colliery undertaking. The development of coal in the past has never been done to any extent by the owner of the coal but by the lessees, the colliery undertakings. Although it is intended to put a restriction upon the lessee, in point of fact the restriction is put upon the owner who, as I have said, in nearly every case has already parted with any right to prevent his minerals being developed by granting a lease to these new areas. It is perfectly clear that the intention of the Clause is really only to restrict the owners and not the lessees of the coal, because the compensation awarded is to be interest upon the lump sum which is awarded to the mineral owners under other Clauses of the Bill. This Clause will be unable to prevent any new mines being sunk except in the one in a thousandth case of the mineral owner who at present enjoys a freehold in the possession of his coal. The new Clause will achieve no object whatever in securing better planning of the coalfield in the future.

4.49 p.m.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) misinterprets the


language of the Clause because the first words are:
No mine of coal shall be sunk or opened in England or Scotland … unless the owner of the mineral rights has first obtained from the Commission an order.

Mr. Peake: A restriction is placed upon the owner. He has already parted in almost every case with his right to prevent development. His coal is under lease. It is the lessee whom it is intended to restrict by the Clause, but in fact it restricts the owner.

Mr. Bevan: There is a limitation which is imposed upon the mineral owner by the language of the Clause, and that passes on to the lessee. The mineral owner still remains the mineral owner.

Mr. Peake: Then he ought to get some compensation.

Mr. Bevan: That is another point entirely. The hon. Member has been trying to show that the Clause is meaningless. If he wishes to claim that compensation ought to be given, he is standing on entirely different grounds. If he is correct in his contention that the Clause is meaningless, surely compensation ought not to be given for something that is meaningless.

Mr. Peake: It is no good now placing a restriction on the owner from doing something that he has already granted permission many years ago to somebody else to do.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member says that there are in most cases in existing leases the right to develop. Does he assert that this Clause does not limit the right to develop in such cases?

Mr. Peake: No, it does not.

Mr. Bevan: But the mineral owner still remains the mineral owner, although he may have leased his coal. There is the mineral owner who has not leased the right to the development of his coal, and the hon. Member admits that the Clause limits him where he exists. He says that such a mineral owner does not exist to any extent, but where he does exist the Clause limits him. In respect of other limitations the Clause has a meaning. Therefore, it is not a Clause that means nothing. It means that where there is a mineral owner who has not leased his

right to development, he will be limited if we pass the Clause. In that respect the Clause has a meaning. Although in fact the other mineral owners have leased their right to develop to certain colliery undertakings, they still remain in law the mineral owners until the vesting date, when the Commission becomes the mineral owner. Therefore, they will have to get permission from the Commission under this Clause before developments can take place on their land.
In some parts of the Bill there is a protection of the existing leasehold rights, but here you have a modification of them. Therefore, those landlords who have not parted with their rights to develop will be limited if the Clause passes. In the second case, as regards the others who have parted with their rights, on lease, they will still be the mineral owners, and the limitation passes on to the colliery companies. If that be so, then if our Clause is passed there will be a limitation of the right of development on the part of any new colliery undertaking. It is just such a limitation that the Government indicated they intended to carry through, and those powers are absolutely essential if we are going to direct the development of the coalfield. The Government are not allowed to mine coal or to exploit coal in any sense of the word. They have not the power of direct direction to the coal-owner but will only have powers governing the exploitation of the coal vested in them as owners of the mineral rights.
We are now told by the hon. Member that in his judgment the vast majority of the leases in this country already carry powers of development. Therefore, with respect to those the Commission will have no power of direction. The hon. Member went on to say that the Clause does not mean anything. We shall remember his speech, and I hope that it will be remembered in Leeds, because he has said in effect that so far as the unification of mining royalties is concerned, in the future as in the past, in regard to the sinking of collieries and the development of the coalfield, the coalowners will be able to do what they like. When we seek to give the Commission for 4½ years the powers which they ought to have, the hon. Member says that for those 4½ years we will have no interference with private economic adventures in the


coalfield. If the Committee does not make provision such as we suggest in the Clause, they are largely wasting their time in regard to the Bill.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 241.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Commission to be satisfied in certain respects as regards voluntary amalgamations.)

It shall be unlawful for a number of coalmining undertaking to amalgamate by voluntary agreement unless the Commission are satisfied "that in effecting such amalgamation due regard will be had to any representations made by any local authority in the area, or by the Commissioner for the

Special Areas, with respect to existing social facilities and works, such as transport, roads, schools, housing, places of entertainment, lighting, water supply, and other facilities and works, and that the wage standards and conditions of labour of the persons employed in such undertakings will not be prejudicially affected, and that provision will be made for the transference or absorption of workers who may be displaced as a result of the amalgamation.—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Taylor: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Voluntary amalgamation is the principle in this Bill, and the Commission may take action if sufficient progress is not being made with the amalgamation. It is very little consolation to those who are affected by voluntary amalgamations and are thrown out of employment to know that it is being done voluntarily instead of by compulsory action. The Clause which I move has been fairly extensively debated on a previous occasion. There is a very vital principle at stake. In these days of amalgamation and rationalisation, we are rapidly coming to the time when we must face up to the problem of what is really the best, cheapest and most efficient way in the national interest to produce a given commodity. I can quite understand that even under voluntary amalgamations, it may be cheaper by a few pence per ton for the colliery company, as a result of amalgamation, to produce coal from a certain mine or mines by a few pence per ton. That is not the real cost as far as the nation is concerned. When we consider the number and extent of the health services for which local authorities are now responsible, the local authorities should, before there is a voluntary amalgamation, have the right to submit a case to the Commission, and that the weight of their evidence as to the ultimate effect upon a particular district should be taken into effect before the Commission agreed to a voluntary amalgamation. The same may be said in relation to the Commissioner for the Special Areas with respect to transport, roads, schools and housing, etc.

The Clause provides that if an amalgamation is consented to, the wage standards and the conditions of labour of the men in the district should not be


prejudicially affected. That is very important as far as the men are concerned. There have been one or two operations which have taken place in the county of Northumberland not in regard to amalgamations, but reorganisations. Instead of the coal being brought by the railway company, the colliery company, being in possession of the necessary land, have put down their own lines and brought the coal from "A" colliery to "B" colliery. There has been surplus labour at "A" colliery because the washing, cleaning and screening has been done at "B" pit. The men at "B" pit, with probably very small additions, are able to deal with the coal brought there from "A" pit. It is true to say that the coal is being produced more cheaply than it was before, but the wage standards of the people at "A" pit have been considerably affected because of the numbers thrown out of employment as a result of the alteration that has been made. That sort of thing applies where you have amalgamations in respect of which pits are taken over and probably some of them are closed down. Some of the men may be absorbed at the pit that has taken over their old pit.

It is not good enough to say that the wages of a man have increased unless you take the whole of the factors into consideration. We have a means test in operation in this country. See how the wage standards are being affected as far as the means test is concerned. Take the case of two men dismissed because a pit has been taken over by an amalgamation. One of them is able to obtain work under the new company, but the other is rendered idle. They are living at home. The man who is working is earning fair wages, but his brother, if he has exhausted his standard benefit, has to make application to the Unemployment Assistance Board, and in consequence the wages of the working brother are taken into consideration. If the brother's wages are sufficiently high, the man's application to the Unemployment Assistance Board is disallowed. The effect undoubtedly is that the income of that home is reduced as a result of the voluntary amalgamation. The wage standard here is reduced by 50 per cent. I would like to give the following illustrations, as I notice that I am still in order. A man

working in our district for many years exhausted his standard benefit. His son came home and obtained work in the district, earning decent wages at the bricklayer's rates. His father was put out of benefit altogether, and the son had to keep the whole family. That is what I mean as having regard to wage standards.

The Chairman: The hon. Member is now beginning to indulge in saying things which make me begin to have serious doubts about the Clause being in order.

Mr. Taylor: I suppose that I can go on as long as there are doubts about it. Later in the Clause it says:
provision will be made for the transference or absorption of workers who may be displaced as a result of the amalgamation.
That is a very important part of the Clause. There have been innumerable instances where men have obtained work, but their wives and families had to be left behind while they went into lodgings. The Clause provides that the Commission, when considering voluntary amalgamations, shall see that proper provision is made in this connection. I hope that I have made the point very clear. We are arriving at a time when it is not good enough for industry, by some rationalisation or re-organisation, to bring in a machine which will throw out a certain number of men and then tell the State that it must keep them. By the introduction of this Clause, I believe that we should take the first step towards safeguarding the men affected by either compulsory or voluntary amalgamation.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Peat: It strikes me that in moving this new Clause Members opposite may have omitted what seems to be rather an important feature. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) said that it was high time that the industry was informed that by improving its productive methods, machinery and so on, it could not throw men out of employment and say to the State, "You must look after these men." The point that strikes me is that the main duty of industry is to the vast mass of consumers in this country who are working men and women, so that its products are made available to them at the lowest possible cost, consequent upon a decent return to capital and to labour. If you are going to say to an


industry that a pit, although it is uneconomic and an expensive pit to run and has, at the pithead, a carefully built-up local organisation of roads, sewers and the like, and a population which cannot take any other form of employment, must not be closed down but, under an amalgamation scheme, must be kept going, the first result in modern industry to-day would be to raise the price of coal over the whole area.
That would have two effects. It would put money into the pockets of the more efficient pits and take more out of the pockets of the people who purchase coal. I am in favour of controlling the price of coal so that it does no more than give a reasonable return to all employed in the industry and no excessive profits on investments, but I would stress the danger of this rather loose talk about keeping uneconomic units in existence for the sake of circumstances which have now become redundant. As far as the industry itself is concerned, its duty to the consumer is to produce at the lowest possible cost. When you have established what is an uneconomic pit or concern, by no means an easy proposition, are you going to the coalowners in Durham and tell them that they must increase the price of their coal in order to look after various communities in the south-west of Durham where the pits are completely worked out and full of water? Are you going to say to the existing mines that they must look after these men? Where are you going to draw the line as to what is economic and uneconomic? It is very difficult.
It is a much better proposition for the consumers of this country that the State should take charge of these communities and look after them. If the State takes charge, then the Surtax payer and the Income Tax payer will have to bear a large proportion of the cost, and it will not mean a steady reduction in the standard of living to the poorest classes of the community owing to what I consider to be an uneconomic price level, which would have to be maintained in order to keep in existence uneconomic pits.

6.3 p.m.

Mr. Batey: I am rather sorry to hear the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) opposing this new Clause. He does so purely on financial grounds, whilst we

are supporting it on humane grounds. I know he has a knowledge of the southwest part of the County of Durham and I think that knowledge should be sufficient to tell him that the time has come when something should be done to prevent areas like those in South-West Durham being created in the future. The hon. Member says that it is a matter for the State to take over when employers have left a district in the derelict condition of some of the areas in South-West Durham. I think it is the duty of the State to take over the coal mines and prevent such districts being created. I regard the new Clause as raising the most important question that can be raised on the Bill. The questions of royalties, amalgamations and selling prices are not so important as the subject raised in the new Clause. It brings us face to face with things of which we have experience. We have seen collieries stopped and districts left derelict, and it is because of what we have seen through voluntary amalgamations that we jump at this opportunity to urge upon the House that when voluntary amalgamations take place the people who are displaced should receive some consideration.
What arguments can be used against such a proposition? We suggest that before amalgamation is allowed to take place the local authority shall be entitled to make some representations. The local authority has spent very much on roads, schools, water and sewerage, and there can be no possible argument against their having the right to make some representations before amalgamation closes down a colliery. We also suggest that the Commissioner for the Special Areas should have the right to make representations. When we have discussed questions affecting the Commissioner for the Special Area, we have been told that one of his duties was to beautify the district. Those who have owned the collieries have left ghastly pitheads and dismantled collieries; they have left the place in ruins, and we appointed the Special Commissioner and gave him as one of his chief duties to beautify the districts, to remove these pitheads and make the place more attractive.
In the new Clause we suggest that the Commissioner should make representation. After his experience of the last few years we think he could make many useful representations before a voluntary amalgamation closed any pit. Another


important provision in the new Clause is that if voluntary amalgamation is going to close a colliery some provision should be made for the transference of the people. In the county of Durham committees who have examined some of our villages have suggested that the whole of the colliery village should be demolished—villages where people have lived during the whole of their lives! A committee appointed by the Commissioner suggested that in South-West Durham three of these villages should be completely demolished.

The Deputy-Chairman (Captain Bourne): I am afraid that is not relevant to the Clause now before the Committee.

Mr. Batey: The Clause suggests that the Commissioner should be able to make representations and that transference should take place. I am bringing before the Committee the question of mining villages which it is suggested should be demolished, and the question of transference.

The Deputy-Chairman: Whatever may be the case of these villages it could not be affected by this Clause. The Clause cannot deal with things which have happened.

Sir S. Cripps: Is it not in order for an hon. Member to give illustrations of what has happened in the past and what he wishes to avoid in the future?

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member gives it as an illustration he is in order, but that is not what the hon. Member was doing.

Mr. Batey: It was more than an illustration. Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but when I have done so I think you will agree that I am in order. I was dealing with what is in the new Clause about transference, and I was saying that I could not agree with transference as carried out by the Ministry of Labour. The suggestion in the new Clause is that when voluntary amalgamation takes place it should be one of the duties to see that the men in the villages are transferred. I regard the question of transference in the new Clause as a very important proposal, and I suggest that the time has come when voluntary amalgamations should not take place or people be able to stop any colliery when they please.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. Member that my predecessor gave a warning before he selected the new Clause that he was extremely doubtful whether it was in order, but he gave the Committee the benefit of the doubt. I share his doubt, and if the discussion develops into a Debate as to whether amalgamations should or should not take place it becomes quite clear that the Clause it outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Batey: I do not intend to carry it so far. I say that when a voluntary amalgamation takes place they should not have the power to close any pit they please simply because they think the pit is uneconomic. I know small pits which under amalgamation have been closed straightaway, and yet those small pits have served the village in which they were situated. I want them to be kept going as long as possible. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) talked about uneconomic pits. Some of us believe that the better pits should help to keep the poorer pits going. It is no argument to say that because there is an amalgamation you should close the poor pits.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now getting very close to the point when I shall have to rule that the Clause is out of order. This is merely a question whether before the Commission sanction an amalgamation certain representation should be made. If the hon. Member is going to suggest that the Commission should not have power to close pits I shall have to say that the Clause is outside the scope of the Bill.

Mr. Batey: I do not wish to get outside your Ruling, Sir, but it would be wise for the Committee to bear in mind that when your predecessor in the Chair first intimated that he might have to reconsider whether or not this new Clause was in order, he was asked to indicate just where we should be out of order.

Mr. Bevan: Further to your Ruling, may I ask for your guidance? Would it be in order to argue that the Commissioners, in considering a voluntary amalgamation, ought not to proceed with it because it would result in the closing down of a colliery or collieries and the withdrawal of social facilities from persons in that area?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that is in order on this Clause. That


point was argued on the question of compulsory amalgamations, which is obviously where it comes within the scope of the Commission. It would be to some extent in order to deal with the point in connection with the modification of the powers of the Commission. There is no obligation to go before the Commission in the case of a voluntary amalgamation.

Mr. Batey: I do not intend to give an excuse for this new Clause being ruled out of order, because I regard it as being far too important. Even if the Debate is a narrow one, I hope it will continue. I do not want to see, as I have so often seen of late years, the closing down of collieries, with the result that the people in the villages are left in an unhappy condition. I hope that the Committee will treat this proposed Clause in a serious way, and that it will be added to the Bill.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Mander: I think the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) went much too far when he suggested that if this Clause were added to the Bill, it would result in a number of uneconomic pits being kept in existence. To my mind, that would not be the result, but it would ensure that if certain pits had to be closed down, provision would be made for the transference or the absorption of the workers displaced as a result of the amalgamation. The hon. Member for Darlington stated a rather hard view when he said that the only matter that ought to be considered was whether an amalgamation would produce coal at the cheapest possible rate, without consideration being given to the social effects. No doubt that was the view 100 years ago, 50 years ago, or even more recently, but it is becoming less and less the view in the industrial world at the present time.

Mr. Peat: I cannot allow the hon. Member to make that statement without challenging him. What I said was that efficiency in industry was more important for the workpeople of this country than anything else, because it meant that their standard of life would be as high as it could be; and that if uneconomic pits—

Mr. Bevan: What are they?

Mr. Peat: I would not like to make a statement on that now—if uneconomic pits

had to be closed down, they should be a charge on the State, and not a charge on the industry.

Mr. Mander: I do not wish to misrepresent the hon. Member in any way, but if he reads his speech to-morrow, I think he will see that he said that the only consideration was the production of coal at the cheapest possible rate. That is a sentiment which I challenge, for I do not believe it is the view which Parliament takes with regard to any industry in which it has any form of control. At the present time, we desire that the financial side, as well as the human side, of any amalgamation shall receive equal consideration, although I should have thought that the human side was a good deal more important than the financial side. In passing legislation of this nature, we ought to make every safeguard, as this Clause endeavours to do, to maintain the social conditions at any rate at their present standard. I have in mind two things for which the Commission, under this Clause, would have regard in the case of an amalgamation. The Commission would very likely say, "What arrangement have you made for the miners who will be displaced as a result of what you are doing?" I know of cases in other industries where, when there have been amalgamations, a definite scale has been laid down and people have received so many weeks', months' or even years' wages in accordance with the number of years' service which they have given.
The other instance is drawn out of the past. It is known that all over the Black Country of South Staffordshire there are many very ugly pit mounds, which are now to a great extent being levelled out for housing purposes. I suggest that in future the Commission ought to bear that matter in mind, and say to those who are promoting an amalgamation that before it can be allowed to take place, they must make some arrangement to see that those ugly pit mounds are not left behind, as they have been in the past. Even if an amalgamation appears to be sound and good from the point of view of the shareholders, I think it ought not to be permitted if it will involve any degradation in the standard of life in the neighbourhood. It is because this proposed Clause offers some prospect of safeguarding the position on those lines that I heartily support it.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: This is a very important Clause, and in the discussion of it we are given good illustrations of the varying forms of capitalist outlook on any sort of industrial organisation at the present time. There are two ways of looking at the matter. One is that which the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) may perhaps disclaim when I attribute it to him, although I think it was the essence of his speech; it is the sort of outlook which causes people to say, "Let us look at the money side of it; let us see whether more money can be made for the shareholders and whether coal can be supplied, generally speaking more cheaply; and if so, do not let us worry about anything else. If, in the course of running our capitalist system in that way we throw off workpeople and leave them sitting in villages where there is no work to do, let the State carry the burden of maintaining them in that luxury which is the lot of the unemployed."
That, of course, is a step forward in capitalist development, because in the old days the capitalist said, "Do not let the State maintain those workpeople, do not worry about them; let us go on seeking profit and nothing else, and for Heaven's sake, do not let the State interfere." Now, at any rate, they have got to the point of saying, "Whenever anything is profitable, by all means let us have it; when we talk about uneconomic pits and uneconomic prices, do not let us think of happiness, or even of houses and water supply, but of the market price of coal and the difficulties of the owners of the pits; and let the State take some part—it can have the wrong end of the stick and take over the burden and wastage."
The other way of looking at the matter—apart from the commonsense thing, which we do not expect the Government to do, of making the industry, which is vital to the community, belong to the community and be properly administered by it for the advantage of the whole community—is that which is embodied in this new Clause. If we must continue to have this industry in private hands, let us, at any rate, see that when it seeks to amalgamate coalmining undertakings for its own profit, some opportunity shall be given for making it consider to some extent the true wealth of the country. Let us, at any rate, see that amalgamation

does not simply mean getting a profit or selling coal cheaply, but shall also mean that the industry shall consider the whole balance of convenience. Let it be remembered that a village is in itself wealth, that in it are skilled coalminers who are in themselves wealth, and that if their lives are made a misery, they will cease to be an asset and become a liability. That would be a sensible and humane thing to do.
It may, perhaps, occur to hon. Members opposite, if they will look at things broadly and not narrowly, that that is the best way of conserving the wealth of the country for which they profess to have some regard, because they believe that for a few years longer they can keep nearly all of it in their own pockets, instead of having it properly distributed in the true interests of the community. I venture to suggest that hon. Members opposite who propose to vote against this Clause should read it and consider what they will vote against. If they vote against it, they will be saying, "It shall be lawful, right, proper, expedient and beneficial for coalmining undertakings to amalgamate by voluntary agreement whatever they like, and if anybody says anything about existing social facilities and works, it shall be sentimental nonsense, to which no regard shall be had by any such undertakings; and if anybody says anything about transport, roads, schools, houses, places of entertainment, light, water supply and other facilities and works, it shall be up-to-date nonsense of the sort that shall not be tolerated; and people shall go on amalgamating their coal-mining undertakings with the express sanction of this Committee, which indicates to them that it is a jolly fine idea to lay whole areas of the country waste by, for their own profit, amalgamating a number of coal-mining undertakings with express disregard of all those considerations." In the same way, should they be considering for their own greater profit and their future baronetcies and peerages the amalgamation of a number of coal-mining undertakings, they will have the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman and his able and efficient Secretary for Mines and all the serried ranks of hon. Members sitting opposite, to the number of 18 or 20, and all their fellow hon. Members in the Smoking Room, if they expressly disregard wage standards, conditions of


labour, and the transference and absorption of workers, and they will be putting up one more little monument to selfish anarchy, and putting a few more nails in the coffin of capitalism.

6.29 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I should not have intervened in this Debate had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat). It is refreshing in one sense to hear the doctrine of the old Manchester School being advocated by so sound a Protectionist as the hon. Member. His concern in this matter is about the price of coal to the poor. Is it not really astonishing that that consideration should be put forward by a Member of the party which, during the last five or six years, has so greatly increased the price of every commodity used by the poor, and has said that that is the reason for the various tariffs and orders which they have introduced?

Mr. Peat: Will the hon. Gentleman include coal among the things which he says have increased in price, and will he tell us where the increased price of coal has gone?

Mr. Ede: The Chair indicated that this Debate would have to be confined within narrow limits, and if I could follow the line indicated by the hon. Gentleman I should have pleasure in doing it, but it would somewhat extend the length of the Debate if I were to attempt to discuss where the increased price of coal has been going during the past few months, especially the large increases which have been asked by the coalowners of the public utility undertakings. The hon. Member said it was far better to let the poor have cheap coal and let the Super-tax payer keep the disinherited coal miner in the mining village. That is not a travesty of his argument, but they are almost his exact words. That is where we differ from him, because it means that private enterprise is to determine the allocation and extent of the burden that the public have to carry. We say that in these days the public should be entitled to have some voice in both the allocation and the extent of the burden of poverty that they are expected to carry.
I regard this new Clause as very valuable because it asserts in definite and direct terms what the Commissioner must take into consideration. Consider what

is happening in part of my constituency which covers the borough of Jarrow. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis) is well aware of the position of affairs there. A particular industry decides that it will amalgamate into a smaller number of units the productive enterprises that they have, and the amalgamation throws a district entirely derelict, presenting the State, the county council and borough council concerned an appalling social problem and leaving them to deal with it. This Amendment asserts that before that kind of thing is perpetrated in the coal industry there shall be constituted some public tribunal which shall decide whether in the interests of the State as a whole economic regeneration is being effected. They may before amalgamation takes place suggest such provisions for solving or assisting to solve the economic difficulties that are created as shall be just to all the parties concerned. I was surprised that a Member representing one of the boroughs in County Durham should take the view that was put forward by the hon. Member for Darlington. I do not think he did himself justice. I believe he remembered he was an accountant and forgot he was a Member of Parliament when he made his speech. The clear dividing line between the attitude of the two sides of the House on this matter was shown in the broad, human view taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor), and the narrow view, more reminiscent of the view of the party that sits in attenuated numbers below the Gangway 100 years ago, of the hon. Member for Darlington.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. McLean Watson: I do not share the alarm that some Members have on the subject of amalgamations. I have seen many voluntary amalgamations in my area, and while it is true that some of them have had ill-effects, others have had the opposite effects. I have seen colliery after colliery absorbed by a large concern in my area. It is true that within a few years of an amalgamation pits have been closed. On the other hand, I have seen a colliery taken over that was looked upon as a small concern which had a hard struggle to keep going. I have seen such a colliery taken over by a big concern and developed into a big colliery. The absorbing company had the capital with which to sink to lower seams and to equip the colliery in a better fashion


than it had been equipped before. Instead of a struggling colliery, we now have a big colliery under that concern. You can, therefore, have both ill and good effects from voluntary amalgamations.
I support the new Clause because of the instruction that is proposed to be given to the Commission. The Commission ought to have regard to the interests of the local authorities before an amalgamation takes place and before pits and even whole collieries are closed down. The local authority should have the power to make representations to the Commission. There is also the point of view of the man who is displaced and thrown out of employment. In my area where collieries have been closed down young men who were living in the neighbourhood have had to go miles to get work in other collieries. That affects their wage standards because they have bus fares to pay and additional expenses compared with those who are living in the neighbourhood of the collieries. There is, however, no work for the men who have worked 10 or 20 years for the colliery which is closed down. These are the individuals to whom we refer as the hard core of our unemployment problem in the mining areas. There is no opportunity for them to get work even if they are prepared to travel considerable distances.
I hope we shall get some encouragement from the Secretary for Mines, because where voluntary amalgamations have been undertaken the colliery concerns have shown little or no concern about the men who were thrown out of employment as a result. What I have said raises the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) about the closing of inefficient collieries. It might be assumed that when a big concern took over a small struggling colliery the first thing that would happen would be the closing of that inefficient pit; yet by a little readjustment and by the expenditure of a little more money the pit has been made efficient. Unless, therefore, one knows the whole circumstances one can hardly tell when a pit is inefficient or uneconomic. It stands to reason, now that all the shallow seams are being worked out, that, in order to carry on, collieries have to sink to lower levels and put down deeper shafts in

order to get the coal, but the bigger concern is the concern that can carry out such work. From that point of view there is something to be said in favour of amalgamations even on voluntary lines. I supported the principle of compulsory amalgamation, but we have had a considerable amount of voluntary amalgamation in my area, and if rumours are true we have not reached the limit yet. I believe that before this Bill becomes an Act we shall have an even bigger voluntary amalgamation in several of the coalfields of this area.
If there are to be voluntary amalgamations in future I hope the Commission will lay it down that more consideration is to be given to the displaced men than has been given before. There would have been less feeling among the miners had colliery concerns given more consideration in the past to the men displaced. It is not enough to say, as the hon. Member for Darlington said, that after a colliery concern can no longer employ the men it is the duty of the State to look after them. That would have been all right if the State had been getting the benefit from the working of the coalmine, but as the colliery owners had been getting the benefit of the labour they employed, it is not right that they should be able simply to say to the men, "We do not require your services any longer. You can live as you like; you can either go to the parish or live on your savings or struggle along as you like; but, as far as we are concerned, we have finished with you." If there had been less of that sort of thing on the part of colliery owners in the past there would have been less feeling against amalgamation, even on voluntary lines. I hope the Commission will lay it down that not only are public bodies to be protected, but that the miners are to have more protection than they have had in the past.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: We have not yet heard from the Secretary for Mines, and I am very hopeful indeed, being of an optimistic nature, as are many of my colleagues here, that the Government are about to grant what is asked for in this Clause, and I shall be grievously disappointed if such is not the case. Indeed, I can imagine that a special remit has been sent from the Cabinet with reference to this Clause, for one


need not be greatly concerned in public affairs to recognise that the question of derelict areas and derelict men is one of the most important which is being dealt with at the present time. This question is involved closely and intimately with the preservation of industry where it is located and where it can be developed upon more humane lines. Derelict areas and derelict men have cost the State, both nationally and municipally, many millions of pounds sterling, and an enormous amount of suffering.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member cannot stretch his speech on this new Clause to cover the whole question of the distressed areas.

Mr. Adams: Then I would say that we disagree with the argument of the colliery owners that in the nature of things amalgamations will be beneficial. They are not necessarily beneficial. One has heard again and again of industries being amalgamated and attempts being afterwards made, in some cases successfully, to revert to decentralisation because the larger units have not been so successful as had been contemplated. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) took the purely economic view that any industry must be made to pay, and that is understandable, but to-day the State is stepping in and taking an interest in industry, and in this Parliament and in the last Parliament we have seen very great benefactions given to industry.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member must confine himself to the new Clause. We cannot allow the consideration of a new Clause to be used as an opportunity to make Second Reading speeches.

Mr. Adams: I am sorry, Captain Bourne, to digress in this way, and it seems to me that if I cannot enlarge and extend my arguments to prove what I am endeavouring to demonstrate, it will be difficult to add anything to what has already been said. No part of the country may suffer more from amalgamations, either voluntary or compulsorily, than Durham, and having suffered in the past what we are asking is that in the event of amalgamations being suggested by the colliery owners the local authorities and the Commissioner for the Special Areas should be consulted—though I rather hesitate to mention the Commissioner, in

case I am out of order, although his name does appear in the new Clause—as to what the effect socially of such an amalgamation will be. The closing of a colliery, or a few collieries, may create a derelict area, and the Commissioner, who has been called into being by this Parliament with a view to remedying a state of affairs already created, ought clearly to be consulted in such circumstances.
We contend that the day has passed when wage questions and standards of employment can be entirely ignored by the community. I had the pleasure of mentioning in the House recently certain amalgamations in which compensation was granted to displaced engineers, and I do not see why similar protection should not be accorded, in the event of amalgamations taking effect, to those who have been employed in any pits which it is proposed to close—as long as the Government decline to deal with the question of redundant labour as affecting colliery undertakings, as long as boys go into our coal pits—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is again wide of the Clause.

Mr. Adams: Very well, Captain Bourne; it seems about impossible to please you so far as this Clause is concerned. I want to assert, finally, that the local authorities ought to have consideration in this matter. They are to be called upon to undertake very heavy expenditure as a result of amalgamations. The Commissioner is entitled to be considered, and the wage-earners ought to have full and complete consideration, and if proper provision is not made by law that they should be protected automatically we say that under this Clause such protection can properly for the first time in our history be accorded to those who suffer from the amalgamation. We ask that this new Clause should, therefore, have the support of the Committee not only upon economic grounds, but upon the grounds of broad humanity.

6.52 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I have been somewhat irritated by the laughter which has come from the other side while the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) has been putting his case. After all, it is a serious subject, and if he did get into conflict with the Chair it was not because he was not attempting to put his case. It comes very hard that there should be this


joking, and the hon. Member opposite is one of the worst I know for that kind of thing.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I only laughed because the hon. Member said he was an optimist, which seemed an unusual role for him.

Mr. Tinker: It ill becomes the House of Commons to seek amusement out of a case of this kind. When amalgamations take place there is not only the economic factor, the purely financial issue, to be considered, but the case of the people who are affected by the combination and may be thrown out of work, and all we ask is that when amalgamations do take place some regard ought to be given to their interests. If an amalgamation will bring almost desolation to a vast number of people, steps ought to be taken to prevent that happening. I have always recognised that under our present system it is difficult to stop amalgamations, but when we see what has happened it is our duty to bring this matter to the notice of the House. If we cannot prevent amalgamations we say that some regard should be given to the transference of the people affected. If an amalgamation is to take place and 200 or 300 people will be thrown out of work, regard ought to be had to whether they can be transferred to some other part of the country before any collieries are closed under the amalgamation. That is all we ask.
Perhaps the time is not opportune, perhaps hon. Members opposite say we have no need to deal with that question yet, but they cannot go on creating derelict areas by degrees without calling upon their heads some show of feeling from the electors. That is bound to happen, and the electors, so far from assisting us to do what we are attempting to do in a constitutional manner, may end by asserting themselves in a more determined fashion. I ask hon. Members opposite not to add to the trouble by making fun of us. I want them to treat this matter seriously and reply to our arguments. If they say that it cannot be done let them prove to us that it cannot be done.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: Last night we heard a number of speeches, particularly from the benches opposite, criticising the power of monopolies in deciding prices,

especially for certain industrial consumers. Much the same idea arises here, because it may be in the hands of a board of directors to decide whether a community shall live or die, for that is what it virtually comes to. The hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Peat) used the term "uneconomic pit." It is possible for efficient concerns to strangle completely certain small concerns, or to bring them to such a state of mind that in order to exist they will agree, somehow, to amalgamate with the larger concern. During the last 9 or 10 years we have had any number of examples of that in most of the coalfields, probably a greater number in South Wales than anywhere.
At the moment a by-election is being fought in Pontypridd. The whole of that community depended upon five or six pits. The Great Western Colliery Company held, I think it is true to say, a greater measure of good will, particularly in the international market than any other concern in South Wales, but that concern was partially—some part of it—was practically driven into liquidation, and although the nominal capital was £300,000 it was finally purchased for about £35,000. The whole of Pontypridd became a derelict area. Practically 40 per cent. of the people normally engaged in the mining industry are totally idle. Close by we have the Treforest Trading Estate. I do not want to extend the Debate and when we were discussing this before we were dealing with the powers to amalgamate compulsorily certain undertakings, while here we are dealing with amalgamations depending upon the volition of the concerns, but I wish to point out that more than £1,000,000 has already been spent at Treforest in order to find work for a few thousand persons at the outside. The State has incurred that enormous liability in order to find work for that very small proportion of persons rendered idle through amalgamations and liquidation.
Before we create any other distressed area, and the closing down of a pit is, in fact, the creation of a distressed area, surely the community in the area should have the opportunity of presenting then-case to the Commission, in order to place before the Commission the enormous amount of social capital which will be affected by the closing down of the pit


or undertaking. In quite a large number of constituencies there has been experience of what I may call the distressed areas problem. Wherever a pit is closed down it means taking away the complete income of a number of households. In other words, the eggs are all in one basket. There is just one breadwinner. The daughters are seldom engaged in service. The total income of the house is affected and they are made destitute. Often they have to depend upon the community, which is already in a bad state financially. Glamorgan and Monmouthshire are two counties where the ravages of amalgamation have taken place to a larger extent than perhaps in any other part of the country outside Durham. The local authorities are mulcted in very heavy Poor Law charges. It is for that purpose that we are pressing the Clause.
There is another feature. It is possible for directors to close a concern in which the miners may enjoy relatively good conditions. In most mines piece-work obtains, particularly for the hewing of coal. Price lists have to be made for the purpose and, where the price list yields a fairly reasonable wage, a pit is closed in order to lower the wage level of the whole of the undertaking. There are very many examples of that in South Wales and elsewhere. Surely every effort should be made to see, particularly in potentially distressed areas, that the community is not robbed of a legitimate purchasing capacity, after price lists have been properly negotiated, because at the whim of a directorship they may close a pit, lower the wage level of the whole area and deprive certain businesses of a market for their goods because of the ever contracting purchasing capacity of the area. All those things ought to be taken into consideration, and they will some day have to be taken into consideration if the House is to face up to the great problem of the Special Areas which exist and which may be created if employers of labour are given free play at any time to do precisely what they like with those whom they employ. It is for the purpose of partially prohibiting that and dealing with what might be the effects arising from amalgamation that we are pressing the Clause.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: When the question of compulsory amalgamation was considered on Thursday last it was made clear that

the reduction of mining undertakings would inevitably lead to the closing down of some pits. The President of the Board of Trade agreed that a case had been made out on behalf of local authorities who were primarily concerned in the closing down of pits which affected their social services and general amenities, and similarly on behalf of those who were likely to be displaced. He agreed that provision should be made to enable local authorities and other interests to make representations to a Select Committee of this House. We persisted in our Amendment and were defeated, but we still press the importance of making prevision in the case of voluntary amalgamation because, although some procedure may be applied arising out of some provision which will emerge on Report capable of dealing with the consequences of compulsory amalgamation, there is no provision which enables the Minister, or the Commission, or Parliament to deal with the consequences of voluntary amalgamation. If, as the result of voluntary amalgamations, over which this House has no control, local authorities and mine workers suffer, what is to be done? The question deserves to be stressed, because it is very doubtful whether there will be much development in the way of compulsory amalgamations at all in view of the procedure that the right hon. Gentleman is going to apply, and of the fact that the arrangements preceding compulsory amalgamation are hedged round with all kinds of restrictions and limitations. Voluntary amalgamation will certainly be stimulated by the Commission if there is no prospect of compulsion being applied.
If pits are closed down what is Parliament going to do? The procedure referred to on Thursday does not apply to voluntary amalgamations. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not prepared to accept our Clause, has he any alternative to offer? Can he give an assurance on behalf of the Commission that before any voluntary amalgamations occur they will inquire into the possible consequences? If he believes that in the case of compulsion it is a matter for Parliament and a Select Committee, is he prepared to give an assurance that the Board of Trade will not permit voluntary amalgamations to take place until there has been an inquiry? That is a very modest proposal. What struck me as very remarkable in


my experience at the Mines Department in 1924 and in 1930–31 was that colliery owners could close down their pits as and when they pleased irrespective of the consequences to the local authority, to the community at large and to the miner. What happened in consequence of that freedom to close down? Local authorities sent their representatives on deputations to the Mines Department, as I have no doubt they do even now, and the Miners' Federation and other interests concerned sent their deputations, as no doubt they do at present. I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman is fully seized of the difficulty that presents itself. If colliery companies can close down whenever they please, and adversely affect the whole life of the community, that is not merely a matter for the community concerned or for the mine workers. It is a matter for the whole industrial life of the nation.
If you denude an area of its only industry, what is to be done? This question bears very heavily on the problem that confronts the distressed areas. I doubt whether there would be a single distressed area in the country of any importance if it were not for the closing down of colliery undertakings. It is because colliery areas, which are the real distressed areas, have been denuded of their industrial life that we have the distressed areas, which cause Parliament so much concern. This is an appeal based on human grounds. We have to concern ourselves, not so much with the industrial as with the social and human values. We cannot afford to allow local communities to suffer in consequence of the liberty which is permitted to the mining or any other class of undertaking to amalgamate and thus to close down some of their concerns.
I make an appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Voluntary amalgamations are not protected by the provisions of the Bill, to which his right hon. Friend referred last Thursday. There is no safeguard. Mining undertakings may amalgamate, may reduce the number of pits employed, may throw out of employment large bodies of men and disturb the life of the community. All those things may happen—indeed, in our view, they are bound to happen. What is the answer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? As no other safeguard is

provided, and as there appears to be no suitable alternative, I hope, in the circumstances, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept the proposed new Clause.

7.16 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Perhaps I may say at the outset that the Committee should be ready to make a decision on this matter, which has already been discussed on a previous occasion. The principle of the proposed new Clause seems to be that if two or more undertakings wish to come together on a voluntary basis, it shall be contrary to the law for them to do so unless the Commission, which is not a party to the amalgamation, is satisfied that certain considerations have been borne in mind for the amalgamation to be effected. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there is a very intense human problem. Everybody recognises that to be the case, because of specific instances. There may be a case where the shutting down of a colliery undertaking, a shipyard or a mill, causes considerable local dislocation and consequent social difficulties to the community involved, and everybody recognises that there must be many cases in consequence of that sort of policy being put into effect. I must ask the Committee to bear in mind, however, that the coming together of two or more undertakings, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, does not of itself involve those consequences. It does not mean, for instance, in the coal industry, that a pit will be closed. Maybe, the amalgamation is effected in order to prevent a pit being closed.
Alternatively, it may very well be that although the amalgamation takes place to-day or to-morrow, no pit is closed down for five, 10 or 35 years. It is not so easy to deal with the intense human problem which the hon. Gentleman mentions, and which we have in mind just as much as he has, even though we do not say so all the time. It is not so easy to deal with it if one bears that sort of aspect in mind. The hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that it is surely of very little consequence to a man who has been thrown out of work as the result of a voluntary amalgamation for him to know that it was done voluntarily. There, again, we must not lose sight of the fact that amalgamation, whether voluntary or compulsory, even though it be followed by the closing of a pit, is not the sole cause of unemployment, which


may very well arise from improved internal organisation of one pit, by the adoption of more up-to-date machinery, by the concentration of production or more intensive working in the pit itself. Unemployment caused in that way has nothing in the world to do with amalgamation, and may bring about just those social difficulties which the hon. Gentleman described.
To accept the new Clause would be to deal Only with a very small fringe of a very large problem; indeed, I am not sure that it does not raise those very questions which have been so much in the mind of the Government and which have now been remitted to the Commission on the Location of Industry—which no doubt will have to bear in mind a good many of these considerations. That is why I say that this new Clause touches only a very small fringe of a very large problem with which, no doubt, in course of time, Parliament will be concerned. The question here is whether the consequence of amalgamation is the closing of a pit, and, as I have indicated to the Committee, that by no means necessarily results. Hon. Gentlemen are saying in this proposed new Clause that the mere fact of amalgamation means the closing of pits, and that the Commission should have to be satisfied about so and so, because if there is an amalgamation and a pit is closed as a result, there may be a very adverse effect upon the local community. As I have said, the adverse effect may come to the community as the result of a pit being closed down to save bankruptcy or the exhaustion of seams. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) was probably right in his point of view in explaining that the proposed new Clause was not providing against something which he wished to have happen, and that he did not want to see the closing down of collieries. Of course, no one does, but it is inevitable that it should happen.
We come back to the position with which the hon. Gentleman ended. He said, suppose that, after the passage of the Bill, there are voluntary amalgamations: should nothing be done through the Commission to consider the larger social and employment problems? My answer to that is one which he anticipated, and it is that although we are giving to a statutory body compulsory powers, Parliament attaches to those powers a specific limitation, and that to

try to translate that same idea into the field of voluntary amalgamation would be to do something for coal which would not be confined to coal and would be part of a very much larger problem. Any kind of undertaking may wish to amalgate with any other, and the consequence of doing so in the wider field may be just as serious as in this narrower field of coal. If that be a principle which Parliament wants to adopt, Parliament must consider it upon a far wider ground than in the form of a new Clause to the Coal Bill because it is not specifically a coal problem. Parliament may say in the future that unless somebody considers the effect upon transference or employment, no amalgamation shall take place; but I cannot agree to introduce this vast new principle into a Bill dealing with coal when the principle has not been thoroughly thought out.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: Why not make a beginning?

Captain Crookshank: If you give to the Commission, as you would in the terms of the Clause—I am not quarrelling with the drafting, but this is inherent in what is proposed—power to say that it shall be unlawful for undertakings to amalgamate unless the Commission is satisfied on such and such grounds, you are in effect, whether you intend it or not, putting a power of veto into the hands of the Commission. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen wish to do it.

Mr. Shinwell: The President of the Board of Trade agreed to put power into the hands of Parliament in the case of compulsory amalgamation to say that before the Commission agreed to compulsory amalgamation certain conditions laid down by Parliament must be complied with. Why not apply a similar principle to voluntary amalgamation?

Captain Crookshank: In my view there is a world of difference between cases where compulsion is exercised and where amalgamation has happened in the normal course of things. Parliament gives powers to the Commission to exercise certain duties. I see a very great difference between the two. The point I was making is that if it is inherent in the proposed new Clause that nobody shall voluntarily amalgamate unless the Commission is satisfied with this and that, you put upon the Commission the power of the veto.


Then, however good the reasons are for giving them that power, you give the Commission power of veto over the voluntary organisation of the industry. This would be going against the decision of this House that the Commission shall not be responsible for the financial running of the industry. That seems to me a lucid reason why the proposed new Clause should not be adopted. It would make the Commission far more responsible for the financial and day to day running of the industry than Parliament decided it should be. Beyond that, to insert a Clause of this kind applying to voluntary amalgamation of collieries—while the case on general human grounds is strong in respect of the difficulties of local communities—would have a very much wider application. I suggest to the Committee that the Clause should not be inserted in the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: May I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that his argument amounts to this: Whereas the Commission are authorised to take action under the Bill in case of compulsory amalgamation, they are not empowered to take action in regard to voluntary amalgamation? Therefore, the case is not on all fours. Let me put this point to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. If the Commission, in the course of their investigations, find that there are very great difficulties in the way of compulsory amalgamation of mining undertakings, but that it is practical to stimulate voluntary amalgamations, as indeed they were empowered to do under the Act of 1930, and that voluntary amalgamations would help, would the hon. and gallant Gentleman not agree that the obligation which is thrust upon the Commission applies as much in the case of voluntary amalgamations as in the case of compulsory amalgamations? If that is so, why not accept, if not the proposed new Clause, a proposal which amounts to this, that just as last Thursday the Committee decided, on the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, that in the case of compulsory amalgamation Parliament should have the final word, so in the case of voluntary amalgamations Parliament should have, if not the final word, something to say before the amalgamation was carried through?

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I believe there are many Members of the Committee who regret that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, although he spoke of his sympathy for the human distress involved in some cases of amalgamation, did not see his way to offer some alternative to this new Clause which he is unable to accept. He objected to the proposal in the Clause that it was applying to the case of voluntary amalgamations in the mines a principle which is not applied elsewhere, but surely we are engaged in what amounts to a reorganisation of the mining industry, an industry which is in a position of peculiar privilege in certain respects and is governed by Acts of Parliament in a way that no other industry is, and the mineowners are given under this Bill a position of special privilege and monopoly. It is therefore reasonable, surely, to say that an industry which is so set apart by its nature and by the position given to it by Parliament should have special provisions to deal with these cases of voluntary amalgamation.
I do not consider that we can avoid voluntary amalgamation or that we should try to do it, but in carrying through amalgamations that may be necessary and desirable, it is, I believe, the desire of a very large number of Members of this Committee and of a very great number of citizens in the country that the human rights of the workers and the effects of amalgamation upon the well-being of the community should be borne in mind. It is surely not too much to ask of the Government that, in passing this great Measure, they should definitely lay it down that it is the duty of the Commission to have regard to those interests. I wish therefore to appeal to the Minister, who has given no response hitherto to the appeals that have been made to him for some alternative, that he should indicate at least the possibility that at a later stage of the Bill some words will be inserted, if not a new Clause, which will safeguard the position of the worker and of the local communities whose life is bound up so largely with the existence of the mines, from the terrible effects that may come upon them if the sole criterion in amalgamation is financial success from the point of view of money returned


to the mining undertaking. I believe that that is the desire of many Members of this Committee.

7.36 p.m.

Sir H. Seely: I think the Minister might have given us some reasons why he cannot put something in the Bill to deal with this problem. It is not, as he said, introducing a new principle of amalgamation in other industries, that you have got to have in mind this question about local authorities, but in Part II of this Bill the functions of the Coal Mines Reorganisation Commission are taken over by the new Commission, and that is to facilitate voluntary amalgamations, which are submitted to that organisation. Therefore, it does not seem to me that it is quite putting a new principle into other amalgamations that may come about in other industries, that you are building up something new. You have said you are going to do something to meet the case of a similar Amendment dealing with compulsory amalgamations, and I feel that something should be done which would not create some new principle in regard to these voluntary amalgamations, because this is an industry that has an arrangement for so-called voluntary amalgamations which are submitted to a Commission.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. S. O. Davies: The Secretary for Mines has obviously not attempted to answer the case submitted in favour of this new Clause. He tried to justify his attitude by telling the Committee that if this were done for coal, it would be expected that the same should be done for other industries in this country. He knows very well that in some respects no industry in the country can be compared with coal mining. Once a colliery is closed down, the chances are overwhelmingly against that colliery being reopened. I am told that a factory, however, may be kept closed, unused, for three, six, nine, or twelve months or longer, and that still that factory could be re-started almost at 24 hours' notice, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows very well that the average colliery that is closed down for three months is, generally speaking, doomed for all time, that is, as we are able to appreciate time in the coal-mining industry, so that there is no analogy there at all.
A previous speaker made a very apt point indeed, and may I add to his appeal

that possibly before the Committee disposes of this question some measure of protection may be provided, not merely, as has been said, for the miners who may be engaged in a particular colliery or group of collieries, but for the whole of the communities that are, in so many of our coal-mining areas, particularly in South Wales, absolutely dependent upon the continued working of a colliery or group of collieries. If I were disposed to localise this problem, I think South Wales represents some of the most terrible tragedies that have been associated with the industrial life of this country, particularly in regard to coal mines. There we have a number of communities entirely dependent upon coal mining, and the closing down of a mine is, not infrequently, on the ground that such a colliery may be uneconomic. One hon. Member urged the Committee to oppose this new Clause on the ground that it might be setting a premium upon the continued existence of uneconomic collieries.
Possibly more nonsense has been talked in this House around that phrase of the uneconomic pit or colliery than on any other phase of the coal-mining industry. There are many on these benches, and I can see one hon. Member elsewhere, who have spent some years in coal mines. We know that there are periods in the history of a coal mine when, as the result of the temporary absence of profit such a mine may be regarded as being uneconomic. The deciding factor is the question of whether or not profits are being made, but some of us have had experiences of collieries being uneconomic, not because the coal seams are inferior, not because the labourers in them are not making the same response as in other collieries, but owing to wicked mismanagement and blundering in the working and opening-up of such collieries. I could speak from experience—

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member had better relate his experiences on some more suitable occasion.

Mr. Davies: I do not intend to elaborate my experience. I simply made use of that phrase in case anyone in the Committee would care to challenge the statement that I had just made. As the result of the way in which collieries have been mismanaged, we are seeing the starkest tragedy overwhelming communities


that have no hope of any other kind of work than coal-mining. The Secretary for Mines knows very well that we need not take up the time of the Committee in elaborating these tragic matters. He knows very well that certain amalgamations have very little that could be argued to their advantage but a great deal that could be said to their disadvantage and condemnation. All that we are asking is that before any of these voluntary amalgamations be permitted in the future, the social and human consequences shall be appraised and weighed in the balance, in order that the Commission can be satisfied that the disadvantages do not far exceed any advantages that can be claimed on their behalf.
The Secretary for Mines, at least by implication, admitted to-night that there may be strong human grounds for this Clause being embodied in the Bill. If that be so, the least that can be done in order that these human grounds may be considered is to accept the Amendment. There are Merthyr Tydfils, Rhondda Valleys, and Dowlais in different parts of this country, and the sufferings of the people, their disappointments, their bitter experiences and their poverty are the consequences of amalgamations which have been inspired by doubtful profit-making and by ignoring human considerations. In view of the fact that there appears to be some small measure of recognition on the part of the Government that there may be some justification for the new Clause, we hope that the Clause will not be completely ignored but that it will be weighed carefully by the Government. If that be done, I am certain that the decision will be that something on the lines suggested in the Clause should be embodied in the Bill.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Gordon Macdonald: I want to put one practical consideration to the Secretary for Mines, and I hope he will consider it worth while to reply again. In my division there will be in days to come some voluntary amalgamations, and there will need to be also some compulsory amalgamations. What this Clause asks for is that there should be the same treatment for those who are displaced or in any way embarrassed by amalgamations, whether voluntary or compulsory. I should like the Minister to con-

sider the position in my division of one village where an undertaking is closed down because of compulsory amalgamation. The President of the Board of Trade told us last Thursday that he is prepared to give consideration to the consequences of an amalgamation of that character. The miners in that village and the local authority will be given the opportunity of consultation which we are asking for in this Clause. In another village in my division there will be a voluntary amalgamation. I want the Minister to realise what my position will be in visiting those two villages. I shall have to explain that in the case of the village where compulsory amalgamation has taken place Parliament has decided to give consideration to those who are adversely affected, but in respect to the other village where a voluntary amalgamation has taken place I shall have to say that Parliament has decided that it shall not receive the same consideration.
The Secretary for Mines said that there is a difference between the two cases. He said that since compulsory amalgamation is imposed by this House as the result of an Act of Parliament, Parliament is responsible for the consequences and is compelled to give some undertaking; but since voluntary amalgamations take place without that consideration, we are not entitled to give the same undertaking. He is skating on very thin ice in this matter and the miners in my division do not appreciate these nice distinctions. I could understand his argument that if an undertaking such as we ask was given in regard to voluntary amalgamations, similar undertakings might be asked for in respect of voluntary amalgamations in other industries. I see the force of his argument, but it is weakened when we bear in mind what happened last Thursday when, after great pressure had been brought to bear from every party, the President of the Board of Trade promised to give consideration to the question before the Report stage. Is the Minister not prepared to give a similar undertaking as regards voluntary amalgamations as was given by the President of the Board of Trade regarding compulsory amalgamations?
I hope he will not tell us that there would be difficulty with other industries, which might make a claim in days to come. We are dealing now with a specific industry and with a question which


was dealt with in a certain way last Thursday as regards compulsory amalgamations, and I cannot understand the Secretary for Mines trying to make the distinction. As a result of the Bill, when it becomes an Act, there will be voluntary amalgamations in different parts of the country, during the two years in which those voluntary arrangements can be made before compulsory amalgamations can operate. I would ask the Minister to give us the same undertaking for voluntary amalgamations which has been given for compulsory amalgamations.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. G. Griffiths: After the statement by the Secretary for Mines I wonder whether he understands the Clause. He said that this matter is only the small fringe of a very large problem. It may be the small fringe of a large problem to him but it is not a small fringe to the local authorities and the localities that will be affected. My mind goes back to villages and townships in my division where a quarter of a million pounds have been spent in the building of houses, not by a colliery company but by the locality. Some of those districts are already fairly highly rated. If under voluntary amalgamations they are not to be allowed to put their case, where is the trouble going to end? I have been in my constituency and have met some of the miners who are following this Bill very keenly. I attended my own council the other day, where they had been discussing Part I of the Bill from six o'clock until nearly 10 at night. They said to me: "George, There is nothing in that Bill for us," and they asked me to watch the amalgamations under Part II. Not only did the men put this view to me, but the managing director of a colliery wrote to me and said that they did not want compulsory amalgamations, and that if they had voluntary amalgamations then the township that would be affected should have an opportunity of putting its case before the amalgamation takes place. That is all that we ask for in this Clause.
With respect to that part of the Clause which asks that wage standards and the conditions and standards of the persons employed in such undertakings will not be prejudicially affected, I could give cases which came to my notice before I was elected to this House, where there were voluntary amalgamations and pits

where strong trade union branches existed were closed because the men had stood out for a good price list. Other pits belonging to the same voluntary amalgamation which were not as strong from the trade union standpoint and had not stood up for a good price list were not closed. No one outside the mining community understands what price lists men, but we in the industry know that it is necessary to be vigilant, because there has been filching in regard to prices. Some of our men have had experiences Wednesday after Wednesday when the deputy has come round and wanted to cut down this price and the other price, but generally the trade union activities have been able to maintain the prices. We are asking that the standards of wages shall not be affected.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is not present, because I want to refer to a pit that had been voluntarily amalgamated by his business concern. The pit was in a little village that was fairly prosperous, but the pit was closed down and has been closed for five years, with the exception of keeping the pumps going. That has been done because there was a good price list made at that pit and the company could get coal cheaper from a pit five or six miles away. The local authority had put up a considerable number of houses there, and now the place is practically derelict. This is a great problem to the people in my own township, where I live, and the people there are watching it very closely. They have a strong trade union branch there and have maintained price lists since 1926, which cannot be said of many pits.
My last point is in regard to the transference or absorption of workers who are displaced. In voluntary amalgamations in the past they have not cared a pinch of salt about the men displaced. Where there has been a strong trade union branch and they have maintained price lists and a pit has been shut down, they have not taken the men on at other pits. The men have been turned away, and the next day the company have started other men from districts perhaps six miles away. We look upon this matter with the greatest amount of caution. We ask that in voluntary amalgamations the men who have served the company before the amalgamation should have


the first chance of work with the same company elsewhere.
I am amazed that the Government are not prepared to accept the new Clause. If the Clause had come from the Government Benches the Government would not only have given it consideration but probably the Secretary for Mines would have said: "We think this is a very nice, reasonable Clause, and on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade and myself I may say that we are prepared to accept it." We do not want sympathy to be shovelled out to us and then to be told when the test comes that the Government cannot accept our Amendment. We ask for a favourable consideration of the Clause, because the matter in question is causing great concern to the mine-workers who have given the best part of their lives to the industry.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Jenkins: ; I agree with the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) that the Minister's reply was unsatisfactory. There can be no doubt about that, because the Minister has put himself in precisely the same position as the colliery company which in relation to amalgamation considers only the narrow point of view of its own interests. Colliery companies have confined themselves to that one consideration in the case of previous amalgamations and the Minister is now taking up exactly the same attitude. Surely it is the duty of the British Parliament to take into consideration all the social questions involved in a matter of this kind and the Minister ought to have regard to the wider issues with which we are concerned. The Minister to-night has given a point-blank refusal to our request and his argument is something like this: There is mechanisation in the mines and that displaces men; we know also that amalgamations will take place. Thus, there are two blacks, says the Minister, in effect, and we want to make a white out of them. But he did not advance one reason why we should not give consideration to the interests of the nation and to the wider social questions involved when he was opposing the proposed new Clause.
May I give a case from my own district? The colliery in which I began work is a small colliery now employing

600 men, but there are two villages dependent on it. Sooner or later, Monmouthshire collieries will be amalgamated and it may be that that colliery will be closed and those two villages left derelict. That will impose a charge on the nation although the colliery company may get away with a slight advantage for the time being. We see in Merthyr Tydfil at the present time a result of amalgamations and removal of works. It is a standing example. How many millions of pounds of State money have been poured out in that case? It seems to me that the Minister is not prepared to take any step in reference to the matter dealt with in our proposals. He says that it would be dangerous to do so. But there is a well-known precedent for doing something of the kind proposed in the new Clause. In the Third Schedule to the Railways Act of 1921 there is a provision that every existing officer, as from the date of amalgamation or absorption, is to become an officer or servant of the amalgamated company. There is a provision by which in the case of voluntary amalgamations, the amalgamated company has to make provision for every servant displaced by the amalgamation.
We do not go as far as that, but we ask that some authority should give consideration to all the factors involved, and the Minister's reply is "No." That is a completely unreasonable attitude. It is not in the interests of the nation and Parliament will do a wrong thing if it allows colliery companies to consider only the question of whether or not they will be able to save a 1d. or 2d. or 3d. a ton by closing down certain collieries, when we know that the closing of those collieries will render villages derelict, and deprive people of their livelihood. On Thursday last, when we were discussing compulsory amalgamations, the suggestion was put forward by the President of the Board of Trade that there should be a Parliamentary Committee for the consideration of points that would arise in connection with those amalgamations. My hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) has now made that proposal to the Minister in regard to voluntary amalgamations. So far, the Minister has turned down that proposal. Is the Minister's attitude not an anti-social one as far as these amalgamations and their consequences are concerned? Is he considering only the welfare of individual


companies? Has he no respect for those communities which may be left derelict by amalgamations?
All we ask is that full consideration should be given to these matters, and I think we ought to have a more satisfactory reply than has been given to us up to the present. It is no good saying that this proposal does not go far enough. It is at any rate a step in the right direction and the Minister has not advanced any argument to show why that step should not be taken in the interests of the workers and the communities concerned. Local authorities ought to have some status in this matter. For years we have been considering problems of the kind that arise from amalgamations. We call them by all kinds of names. We refer to Special Areas, and distressed areas, and all the rest of them. These problems arise from bad organisation in industry, and if these amalgamations are persisted in without any consideration being given to the interests of the people concerned and the larger questions involved, we shall continue to do damage such as we have already seen in so many mining areas. I ask the Minister to reply to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham. This is a tremendously important matter and ought not to be treated lightly by him. He ought to give us a definite reply one way or the other. If he is not prepared to meet our demand, the obligation rests upon him to give more substantial reasons for his attitude than he has given so far.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Sexton: When my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Adams) described himself as an optimist a smile went round the Committee. I suppose if I call myself a simple unsophisticated country-lover hon. Members will find occasion for amusement. But my lot was cast for many years in green pastures and beside the still waters, and it was not until I came to this great city of London that I realised that such a valuation could be placed upon human life as that which is exemplified in this Bill. The various owners concerned have all been considered except one. The owner of the minerals is to be safeguarded and compensated and the owner of the mine is also to be awarded compensation, but the man who owns the labour which is put into the working of the mine is

ignored and given no consideration under this Bill. The local authorities are also to be left derelict. I have said that I come from a country district. I should explain that it is the derelict area of South-West Durham. If I were to enlarge on the condition of that area I should doubtless be pulled up by the Chair, and I will only refer to the number of mines which have been closed in that area during the last few years—not all by amalgamation but some by amalgamation.
Between 1917 and 1937 the number of mines has been reduced from 91 to 79. The rateable value has fallen and yet the social services have to be kept going by local authorities, and if amalgamations are to continue and if local authorities are to be saddled with further burdens of this kind, they will soon be worse than bankrupt. Not only are the local authorities and the miners affected. The workers generally in those districts are also affected. Much has been said, and I endorse every word of it, about the miners' welfare. We have also to remember that when the miners are out of work tradesmen and people in shops cannot pay their assistants and are compelled to discharge some of those assistants. Not only the miners but shopkeepers and tradesmen are concerned in this matter. In the district to which I refer the number of men engaged in the mines alone, has been reduced from 33,300 to 22,400. We ask that something should be done. The Secretary for Mines said that our proposal only touched the fringe of the problem. Has he forgotten the historic case in which if the hem of the garment were touched, inspiration followed. I suggest that if the Government would only touch the fringe, as we ask them to do in this case, inspiration might come to them and enable them to deal with the problem as a whole.

8.11 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot think that the very forceful speeches which have been made from this side of the Committee are not going to produce a further reply from the Government. I have seldom listened to a speech which was such a negation of both fact and logic as that which we heard on behalf of the Government. The hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared to think that if Parliament established any sort of control over voluntary amalgama-


tions, it would be a revolutionary principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) has made an interesting reference to the Railways Act, 1921. The existing railway companies cannot engage in voluntary amalgamation without legislative permission and authority and if they came to Parliament for that authority, Parliament would attach to it a provision for compensation against displacement or worsened conditions of employment. My hon. Friends have not yet made their claim in this matter as high as that, but they are making a claim which is in line with the provisions of the Railways Act, 1921.
The Government's attitude on that point is the negation of fact. The negation of logic is more perplexing. The Minister seems to assume that every compulsory amalgamation agreed to by the Commission will be, or is likely to be, against the public interest, and that, therefore, there must be some appeal against it to a Select Committee of both Houses. He seemed at the same time to assume that voluntary amalgamation over which the Commission has no control, will be in no case against the public interest and that there is no need for any sort of public control over them. Does any hon. Member assume that no voluntary amalgamation can ever have any undesirable characteristics into which public inquiry ought to be made and in regard to which there ought to be public control? I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Government's desire is that the mining industry should evade every form of public inquiry and control by hastening on with their voluntary amalgamations so that they will escape the provision promised last Thursday.
Then the Minister in another so-called argument against the Clause said there were other causes of unemployment than amalgamations, and that these were unavoidable causes. Is it any justification for not dealing with an avoidable cause to say that you cannot at the same time deal with an unavoidable cause? Surely the reasoning should be in the opposite direction. If there is a cause of unemployment over which Parliament can exercise some control, however small, it ought to exercise that control. I add my voice in this Debate in the hope that the Minister even now will see the logic of the arguments

put forward from this side, and will provide some assurance that will satisfy my hon. Friends.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: A great many arguments have been put forward, and, if the Minister persistently declines to answer them, we must draw our own conclusion that no effective answer to them can be made. In these circumstances it would be a pity to allow the Debate to end without reviewing briefly the true reasons why the Government are unwilling to accept the Clause. The fundamental point at issue is whether, where amalgamations take place in industry—whether compulsory or voluntary it matters not—the same provisions of just compensation should apply to the labour that is displaced as to the capital which is injuriously affected. I have noticed, in all these half-hearted Socialistic Measures which Conservative Governments reluctantly put forward, that whenever there is any proposal to expropriate or injuriously affect a money interest there are invariably the most elaborate provisions for compensation for the capital affected or displaced. It is only of late years, under the strongest and most sustained pressure, that the Government have ever recognised that labour displaced is entitled to the slightest consideration.
The Minister believes that in opposing this new principle he is opposing a revolutionary principle, but in point of fact he is doing the exact opposite, because the strongest argument against the principle of compensating capital is the argument that, when labour is displaced, compensation is invariably refused. I wonder what a coal miner will think when he sees the arguments used to condemn him if he feels reluctant to compensate a capital interest that has been displaced. How much ink has been spilt in criticism of those who in the past have advocated that policy. It is no part of the policy of this party to-day; we wish to compensate equally the labour and the capital interests; but in the past, when the word "confiscation" has been mentioned, the newspapers have been full of criticisms, the hoardings have been placarded with the words "Confiscation is Robbery." What will a coal miner think, as he comes out of a mine which has been compulsorily or voluntarily amalgamated and closed down, if he sees


this criticism against the confiscation of capital? What argument of natural justice can be adduced to show that labour displaced is not entitled to compensation equally with capital displaced? There is no answer to this Clause in common justice, and the reason why the Minister is not able to accept it at present is that it will drive him up against the inevitable conclusion that natural justice in industry at the present time can only be accorded by a thorough-going system of Socialism and State control of industry. We are moving steadily towards that end, and the Minister will be forced to acknowledge it before many years have past.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The Minister has given a point-blank refusal to this Clause. No doubt he will put on the Whips and the Clause will be defeated, and this will be the last occasion on which we shall be able to raise this matter effectively during the passage of the Bill. I want to add one suggestion. When there was a revolt on the other side, twice during the past week, two things happened. On the occasion of the first revolt, with regard to compulsory amalgamation, the Government caved in. They surrendered to a number of people who represent but a tiny fraction of the number represented by those who have spoken from this side to-night. We shall not forget to tell the country that they surrendered to a vested interest but are deaf to the appeals of large masses of the people. The other revolt was on the part of people not quite so important—the small industrial consumers, whose voices we heard last night. The Minister did not surrender to them, but he did the next best thing. We were told that he and the President of the Board of Trade met the Central Mining Association, and that, while the Government could not surrender any more, they had had very specific assurances from the Mining Association that such-and-such things should be done. They were read out here yesterday.
I want to suggest to the Secretary for Mines that, if we are defeated on this Clause, he should once more go and see the coalowners, the people who will be responsible for voluntary amalgamations, who may, indeed, be already busy considering them, not perhaps in London,

but in the mining areas. I would like to see all discussions on the amalgamations of collieries held in the mining villages, so that people could be taken round and shown what the consequences would be if they go on with it. Will the Secretary for Mines approach the coal-owners and ask them to give him another pledge that they will not proceed with any scheme of voluntary amalgamation until they have consulted the Commission and satisfied the Commission that in the voluntary amalgamation there will be the same protective provisions, meagre as they are, that there will be in the case of compulsory amalgamations? I do not think that that is asking too much. The Minister has been to the coalowners to satisfy those on his side who are supporters of money, wealth and privilege. Will he now go to the coalowners and ask them for a pledge not to carry through any voluntary amalgamation unless the same protection is given as is accorded in the case of compulsory amalgamation? Unless he is willing to do that, we shall again remind the country that he went to see the coalowners at the request of the financiers, but will not go to see them at the request of the people.

8.23 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I would ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give an answer on the suggestion which has just been put forward, and which seems to me to be eminently a reasonable suggestion. He went to the coalowners to get them to do things, which he said yesterday could not be put into the Bill, for the benefit of certain interests. Is he willing to go to the coalowners, in the interests of the miners and the local authorities, to get from them, if he can, some undertaking that in future amalgamation schemes there will at least be consultation with those who will be affected? The matter is one of very vital importance. This is the last occasion that we shall have of putting into the Bill a single mention of any sort, kind or description of the mining community or the local authorities as being interested in the mining problem of this country. So far the Bill is absolutely blank as regards any such interests. As far as the Bill goes, they might not exist. We have tried uniformly to get protection for these people inserted, somewhat on the lines of the very elaborate protection that is provided for


other interests. If that cannot be done, will the Minister tell us whether he will at least approach the coalowners and see if they will give some form of guarantee?

8.25 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Of course, I am always prepared to consider any suggestion made in debate, and I will consider it.

Mr. Shinwell: On the question of compulsory amalgamation, it was agreed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to bring up the matter on the Report stage. Will the Minister agree to bring up this matter on the Report stage after he and his right hon. Friend have given proper consideration to it?

Captain Crookshank: I will think over what is to be done.

Mr. Shinwell: Do I understand that, in accordance with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), the hon. Gentleman will consider it and bring it up on the Report stage?

Captain Crookshank: Hon. Members must be reasonable. The suggestion was made to me on the spur of the moment, and I said that I will consider it.

Sir S. Cripps: How can we get to know what the hon. Gentleman has decided? Will he reply on a question, or will he tell us on Report?

Captain Crookshank: There will be an opportunity to let hon. Members opposite know.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: This seems such an important matter that I feel we might have the presence of the President of the Board of Trade. In order to ensure his presence, I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

The Chairman: I cannot accept that Motion.

Mr. Shinwell: May I, with great respect to you, Sir Dennis, point out that during the whole of this Debate we have not had any word from the right hon. Gentleman

himself, although the Debate has run on for several hours. In view of submissions made by my hon. Friends, and, I may add, by hon. Members on the other side, who have sympathised, at all events, with the sentiments expressed in the Clause, the right hon. Gentleman might have been present.

The Chairman: The hon. Member has made his point. I am afraid I cannot accept the Motion.

Captain Crookshank: After all, we have had a very long discussion on this matter and I think that perhaps the Committee is now ready to come to a decision on this Clause. We have had a great number of speeches, and the case has been very fully put. Right at the end of the discussion an hon. Gentleman put to me the question of whether I would consider discussing a matter with the colliery owners. I said that on this, as on other matters, I am always prepared to consider the question. I will see that an opportunity is given for letting hon. Members know my decision. Now, I suggest that we should leave this point, as there are a number of new Clauses of great interest which still await us.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Lansbury: What I cannot understand is why there should be any difficulty about the Minister telling us that he will reply to a question put to him as to the result of his conversations with the coalowners. Surely he can say, yes or no?

Captain Crookshank: I said there would be an opportunity, and I will repeat that, in order to please the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Lansbury: No, I do not want to be pleased. What we want is that the President of the Board of Trade or the Secretary for Mines shall consult with the owners, in the same way as they consulted on a previous occasion, but this time on the proposition that we put forward, and that they will inform hon. Members of the result of those conversations.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 207.

Division No. 87.]
AYES.
[4.57 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Parker, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Parkinson, J. A.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Banfield, J. W.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Barr, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Ridley, G.


Ba,ey, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Riley, B.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hollins, A.
Ritson, J


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton. T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Charleton. H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stephen, C.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Lathan, G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cocks, F. S.
Lawson, J. J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Leach, W.
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lee, F.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Walker, J.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mander, G. le M.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Frankel, D.
Marklew, E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gallacher, W.
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gardner, B. W.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Messer, F.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)



Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Muff, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


Grentell, D. R.
Noel-Baker, P. J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Channon, H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Denville, Alfred


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dodd, J. S.


Assheton, R.
Christie, J. A.
Doland, G. F.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Clarke, F. E. (Dartford)
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.


Atholl, Duchess of
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Drewe, C.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Balniel, Lord
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Colfox, Major W P.
Duncan, J. A. L


Barrie, Sir C. C.
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Dunglass, Lord


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Eckersley, P. T.


Beechman, N. A.
Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Bennett, Sir E. N.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Ellis, Sir G.


Bossom, A. C.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff (W'st'r S. G'gs)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.


Boulton, W. W.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Elmley, Viscount


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Emery, J. F.


Brass, Sir W.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Critchley, A.
Errington, E.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C
Everard, W. L.


Butter, R. A.
Crossley, A. C.
Findlay, Sir E.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Culverwell, C. T.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Fremantle, Sir F. E.


Carver, Major W. H.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dawson, Sir P.
Gluckstein, L. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
De Chair, S. S.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Do la Bère, R.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.




Greens, W. P. C. (Worcester)
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Gredley, Sir A. B.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Shakespeare, G. H.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Grimston, R. V.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Magnay, T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Guinnoss, T L. E. B.
Matins, Brig.-Gen. E
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. K. D. R.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Hambro, A. V.
Marsden, Commander A.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Meller, Sir R. J. (Mitcham)
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Harris, Sir P. A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Harvey, Sir G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Storey, S.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Morgan, R. H.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hepworth, J.
Morris, O. T. (Cardiff, E.)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Higgs, W. F.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Tate, Mavis C.


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Nicholson, G. (Farnham)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Holdsworth, H.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Holmes, J. S.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J
Palmer, G. E. H.
Titchfield. Marquess of


Hopkinson, A.
Patrick, C. M.
Touche, G. C.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Peat, C. U.
Train, Sir J.


Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Petherick, M.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Tufnell. Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Hume, Sir G. H.
Pensonby, Col. C. E.
Turton, R. H.


Hunter, T.
Porritt, R. W.
Wakefield, W. W.


Kurd, Sir P. A
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Hutchinson, G. C.
Procter, Major H. A.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Radford, E. A.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Rankin, Sir R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Keeling, E. H.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
White, H. Graham


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Wickham, Lt.-Cot. E. T. R.


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Leech, Sir J. W.
Rothschild, J. A. de
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Lees-Jones, J.
Rowlands, G.
Wise, A. R.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Lewis, O.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Liddall, W. S.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wragg, H.


Lipson, D. L.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Lloyd, G. W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Salmon, Sir I.



Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Salt. E. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Cross and Major Herbert.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[8.31 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Price, M. P.


Ammon, C. G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hayday, A.
Quibell, D. J. K.


Banfield, J. W.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Ritson, J.


Batey, J.
Hollins, A.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hopkin, D.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
John, W.
Shinwell, E.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Silkin, L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. CS. Ayrshire)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Kirkwood, D.
Stephen, C.


Cocks, F. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leach, W.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Leonard, W.
Thorne, W.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Thurtle, E.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Tinker, J. J.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Viant, S. P.


Dobbie, W.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Maclean, N.
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Westwood, J.


Fletcher, Lt. Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
White, H. Graham


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Gardner, B. W.
Messer, F.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Noel-Baker. P. J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Oliver, G. H.



Grenfell, D. R.
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Adamson.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Cower, Sir R. V.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Tha[...])
Craven-Ellis, W.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Balniel, Lord
Critchley, A.
Grimston, R. V.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)


Beechman, N. A.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.


Bernays, R. H.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hambro, A. V.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cross, R. H.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.


Blair, Sir R.
Crowder, J. F. E.
Harbord, A.


Boulton, W. W.
Culverwell, C. T.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Dawson, Sir P.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.


Brass, Sir W.
De Chair, S. S.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
De la Bère, R.
Hepworth, J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Higgs, W. F.


Bull, B. B.
Denville, Alfred
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Doland. G. F.
Holmes, J. S.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Butler, R. A.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence


Cartland, J. R. H.
Duncan, J. A. L.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Carver, Major W. H.
Eastwood, J. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Hunter, T.


Channon, H.
Elliot, Rt Hon. W. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Ellis, Sir G.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.


Christie, J. A.
Emery, J. F.
Keeling, E. H.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Colfox, Major W. P.
Findlay, Sir E.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Law. R. K. (Hull, S. W.)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Leech, Sir J. W.


Cooke. J. D. Hammersmith, S.)
Gluckstein, L. H.
Lees-Jones, J.







Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Ponsonby, Col, C. E.
Storey, S.


Lewis, O.
Porritt, R. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Liddall, W. S.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Lipson, D. L.
Procter, Major H. A.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Little, Sir E. Graham-
Radford, E. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M
Sutcliffe, H.


McCorquodale, M. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Tate, Mavis C.


Magnay, T.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Touche, G. C.


Markham, S. F.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Marsden, Commander A.
Ross Taylor, w. (Woodbridge)
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Rowlands, G.
Turton, R. H.


May hew, Lt Col. J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wakefield, W. W.


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forests)
Russell, Sir Alexander
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morgan, R. H.
Salmon, Sir I.
Warrender, Sir V.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Salt, E. W.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Samuel, M. R. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Nall Sir J.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Savery, Sir Servington
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Scott, Lord William
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Selley, H. R.
Wise, A. R.


Peat, C. U.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Peters, Dr. S. J.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.



Pilkington, R.
Spens. W. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Major Herbert and Mr. James




Stuart.

NEW CLAUSE.—(As to existing leases.)

On and after the vesting date the following provisions shall apply to all leases of coal or mines in force at that date notwithstanding any provisions in any such lease to the contrary:

(1) No minimum or dead rent shall be payable, but the right of the lessee under any such lease to recoupment of any overpayment in respect of past short workings shall not be affected;
(2) If the lessee gives notice in writing to the Commission of his desire to renew a lease not less than six months before the date of determination prescribed therein, the consent of the Commission to such renewal on reasonable terms and conditions shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any question whether such consent is being unreasonably withheld, or whether the proposed terms and conditions or any of them are reasonable and what other terms and conditions are reasonable, shall, if the lessee so require, be referred to arbitration, and the lessee shall be entitled to a renewal of his lease on such terms and conditions as may be found by the arbitrator to be reasonable.—[Mr. Peake.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Chairman: This proposed new Clause and the next one on the Paper, also in the name of the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—(Certain provision of new leases)—seem to deal with the same point, the one in the case of existing leases, the other in the case of new leases. I suggest that they should be dealt with in one discussion, and that the second proposed new Clause should be called only for the purpose of being put to the Committee for their decision.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I fully appreciate the suggestion that these two new Clauses should be discussed together. As you have said, Sir Dennis, they raise precisely the same point, but the first deals with existing leases and the second with future leases to be granted by the Commission. I hope that hon.


Members in all quarters of the Committee will be able to understand the meaning of these new Clauses better than I was able to understand the meaning of the last new Clause which we discussed. The first new Clause, the Second Reading of which I now move, is divided into two parts. Sub-section (2) is intended to indicate that there should be a bias in future on the part of the Commission in granting renewals of existing leases, in favour of the party who has been the leaseholder previously. In many parts of the coalfields considerable sums have been sunk in developing mines where there are large quantities of coal still to be worked, but where the lease may only have a few years to run. The colliery owner hitherto has been fully safeguarded by the fact that he could go to the Railway and Canal Commission under the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act for an order for the extension of the lease. But that Act as far as it affects coal, is swept away by Clause 18 of the Bill and the security which the colliery owner has hitherto enjoyed, in being able to get a renewal of his lease, may be prejudiced. This Sub-section goes no further than to suggest that there should be a certain bias on the part of the Commission in favour of granting renewals to existing leaseholders rather than new leases to persons who have not been interested in the coalfield previously.
I do not, however, attach tremendous importance to that part of the new Clause because in many cases it is still possible to extend the duration of leases before the valuation date. The important part of the Clause is Sub-section (1). Hon. Members who understand mining matters are well aware of the evils of the minimum rent system. For many years past I have urged the unification of coalmining royalties, not on any theoretical ground of public advantage, but on the purely practical ground that the working and development of collieries would be made much simpler and could be greatly improved if the colliery proprietor were free to work the parts of the coalfield which could most economically be worked, irrespective of the ownership of the surface and the dead rent payable to each individual surface owner. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate that this very important question of minimum rents will be dealt with by the Commission. In fact, from Clause 21, which lays down what

rents may be reduced and at what time they may be reduced, it appears that this question of minimum rents is going to be put on one side and lost sight of altogether. I find nothing in the Bill to indicate that it is the intention of the Commission to deal with this question from the point of view of the working of the coal mines.
It is a matter of great practical importance. It affects the amount of travelling which men have to do underground. It affects the lay-out of the pits, the ventilation, and, to some extent, the question of safety. If colliery proprietors knew to-day that in future they could develop their coalfields upon the best practical lines, irrespective of this question of minimum rents which has hampered the industry in the past, the public advantage would be greatly served. I have put down this new Clause in the form of a proposal for the abolition of minimum rents, but it would serve my purpose equally will if minimum rents were merged at each individual undertaking into a single minimum rent for that undertaking. It seems to make very little difference whether you abolish minimum rents, or whether they are so merged at each undertaking as to give freedom to the colliery concerned to work the coal to the best advantage.

Mr. A. Jenkins: What does the hon. Member mean by merging? Does he mean merging them in the royalties?

Mr. Peake: No. A colliery at present has, on the average, five or six different mineral lessors. To each of those a separate minimum rent has to be paid whether any part of his coal is worked or not. What I am suggesting is that you should merge these several minimum rents into a single minimum rent payable over the whole area of that particular colliery. That would give freedom to work the coal in whatever part of the area it could be most economically developed. This question has assumed additional importance since machine mining came in. In the old days, faces were extended over very wide areas, and it was no inconvenience to get quantities of coal under different surface areas; but with mechanised mining, and the resulting concentration of work underground, this question of minimum rents has become rather an acute one. In fact, it represents the sole


immediate practical advantage of any magnitude to be gained from Part I of the Bill.
I am fully aware that it is impossible for a private Member to draft any Amendment that will get through the very fine sieve of Departmental and technical criticism, and all that I am asking of the Minister on this Clause is that he shall give some declaration of policy as regards what the Commission is going to do about this matter. We have to plan the development of our mines many years ahead. We are considering to-day what seams are going to be worked in 15 or 20 years' time, and the development of a pit, once settled, is, as hon. Members opposite know, settled very often for all time. Important decisions are being taken every day at collieries as to the future planning of the coal mines. If we could have a declaration that it is the intention of the Commission to merge these minimum rates and treat them in such a way that we shall not be penalised, and if we could henceforth develop our mines on the assumption that these minimum rents will be merged, that would be a great practical immediate help to the coal industry, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us some statement on the lines I have indicated.

5.18 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: It is very difficult to say in advance what may or may not be the policy of the Commission when it comes into being; and I cannot possibly give any firm answer to a question of that kind. I understand that we are discussing my hon. Friend's two proposed new-Clauses together, and that he wishes for some indication that in future there will be a bias towards granting renewals to previous leaseholders instead of to other people. The Clauses deal with three quite different points; while my hon. Friend has attached most importance to the question of minimum rents, they raise other issues. On the question whether in the future there should be a bias in favour of the existing lessee in renewing a lease, I should imagine that the Commission would act, as I said before, as the best possible landlord, and would doubtless have regard to what might be the customary practice in these matters. But, while my hon. Friend suggests that there should be a bias in that direction because

the mining facilities legislation will be swept away by the Bill, it is important to remember how the mining facilities legislation acted. As I understand it, what the Railway and Canal Commission had to consider, if there was a dispute on this question, was whether it was in the national interest that such-and-such a lease should be renewed. The criterion was the national interest.
The reason why that has disappeared is that, while the mining facilities legislation was introduced as a step which was thought desirable at that time, when Parliament and the country did not wish to advance as far as we are advancing now, there is now to be a statutory Commission, which is to have regard to the general interests and efficiency of the industry, and also to any general directions which the Minister may give in the national interest. Therefore, it is obviously anomalous to have recourse to the Railway and Canal Commission on a matter of public interest which clearly comes within the functions of the stautory Commission. My hon. Friend points out the great advantage that would follow in his view, firstly, if minimum rents were abolished altogether, or, secondly, if they were all merged. But, on the other hand, he suggests that the right of recoupment should be continued—a very valuable right, it seems to me—without any obligation on the part of the lessee to carry out the terms of the contract into which he has entered. In fact, I think that the benefit of this retention of the recoupment without any obligation as regards minimum rent would mean an immediate remission of something like £400,000 out of the estimated revenue which the Commission would have reason to anticipate as the result of the abolition of royalties.

Mr. Peake: My hon. and gallant Friend will, of course, remember that, in valuing the royalties at £66,000,000, the fact that there was this liability to repay to the lessees these overpayments of minimum rent was taken into account.

Captain Crookshank: Nevertheless, it would still be a very great financial advantage to the lessees generally if this provision were made, and that raises the question whether, if there were any remissions of one kind or another, this is a form of remission which would be most valuable, not to the lessees alone, but to the industry generally. I think we must


bear in mind the effect of Clause 21, which we have already passed, and which indicates the kind of considerations which should be borne in mind in any planned relief by the Commission. In general terms, if one colliery is paying more than another, or one district is paying more than another, ways are laid down in Clause 21 by which it may be desirable to reduce its payments. The Commission would consider, in the case of colliery A, B or C, what its all-in obligation amounts to—whether it is rent, or minimum rent, or royalty payments, or wayleaves—and how the obligation of A compares as a whole with the obligation of B, rather than, as in this case, singling out the minimum rent proposal as the one that should have priority. In the same way, when a proposal was made that royalties should be the first consideration, that proposal was rejected by the Committee. I think the Commission would bear in mind the general burden, say per ton, which any particular lessee found himself having to pay.
If we were now to abolish all minimum rents as such straight away, it seems to me that it would be contrary to the implication of Sub-section (2) of Clause 21, and it would also be contrary to the first part of that Clause, which expressly says that any planned reduction should be made when there is a revenue surplus foreseeable, that is to say, when it becomes clear in figures that there is a surplus to distribute and that the Commission can afford it. That seems to me to be the answer, as far as I can give it, to the general question that my hon. Friend asked. I know it does not carry one very far, because I am not the Commission, and we cannot know by what motive they will be actuated. But if they act as a good landlord, trying in the interests of the industry to reduce burdens where they are excessive, I think they will probably take all these factors into account.
As to whether they should consider merging all the minimum rents of one undertaking at any given moment, I should have thought that that question would arise rather in regard to the powers of the Commission to consolidate leases, and that they would be able to do the merging there. But, at the end of that, presumably, there would still have to be some form of minimum rent. I do not believe it would be possible ever to get

away from that, because otherwise there would be no kind of obligation on the lessee at all. Such an obligation was envisaged in the fairly recent legislation with regard to petroleum, where a minimum obligation was laid down. I think we must always have at the back of the lease some form—I do not say exactly what—of obligation, and that obligation has been brought down by the practice of many years to what is called minimum rent. My hon. Friend did not deal with the other parts of his proposed new Clause; I do not know whether he wants me to do so in advance.

Mr. Peake: I must ask my hon. and gallant Friend to forgive me. I forgot to say a few words on the question of the arbitration Clause in the new leases. That is a matter to which the industry attaches very considerable importance. All leases hitherto have contained an arbitration clause, and that has worked to the advantage of both parties. In the vast majority of disputes between a colliery lessee and the mineral landlord, the question has been settled without going to law or involving the processes of the courts. We should like to see in any new leases granted by the Commission provisions included with this object.

5.30 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: There are two questions here which might be referred to arbitration. The first is where a lease is being withheld. There is another later on, about refusal to grant a lease. The first question is whether there should be arbitration because renewal has been withheld, and the second is a very much smaller matter, relating to disputes with regard to the provisions of a lease. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is the general practice to have some sort of clause of that kind in a lease. We must assume that, as the Commission would wish to act as a good landlord—indeed as the best possible landlord—it would not be likely to throw aside a practice which all good landlords have made customary. I do not think anyone could lay down in an Act of Parliament what a lease should or should not contain. As to whether there should be arbitration because a lease has been withheld, that is quite another matter. If it is reasonable for a lease to be continued, no doubt the Commission will continue it, but if you are going to expect the Commission to act as


a good landlord they must be the ultimate arbitrators as to whether they shall grant a lease, because, if not, the Commission's functions in that direction must be almost nugatory. Whether that is the answer the hon. Member expected or not, I do not know; but that is the answer that must be given. If there are any further points which arise I will try to deal with them as they come up.

Mr. Peat: Am I right in understanding that when the Commission take over the leases, they do not take over any liability for dead rents, or for allowing those dead rents to be worked off, although they have received £400,000 on account of those dead rents?

Captain Crookshank: I do not think that, unless something was specifically put into the Bill about it, it could affect the terms of a lease at all. The terms of the lease go on.

5.35 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I congratulate the Government on a slight access of backbone. In the past, even an advertisement issued by the Mining Association has been enough to cause them to collapse. Perhaps the explanation is that this is a more rapacious demand than even the Mining Association should dare to put forward. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has Oliver Twist beaten to a frazzle. The more the mineowners get, the more they demand. I am only surprised that they do not say that no rent should be payable in respect of mining leases. Will the hon. Member remember that the Commission are paying on the basis of certain dead rents? How would he appreciate it if he were asked to purchase 12 houses on each of which a minimum rent of £50 a year had been placed, and then he had the condition thrown upon him that he must not charge the minimum rate in future, thereby destroying the value of the properties? That is what hon. Members are trying to do in this case. The truth is that dead rents have been a problem in the past, and they are a problem, no doubt, that the Commission will have to consider; but to deprive the Commission of that for which Parliament is compelling them to pay would be fantastic. The hon. Member for North Leeds mentioned a number of things, but one thing he forgot to mention was the property of

the mineowners, who would obviously benefit very largely if the burden of dead rents were removed from their shoulders. They would get the benefit, first, of the payment for dead rents, and, then, of the abolition of dead rents as well.

Mr. Peat: I do not follow the right hon. Gentleman's reply to my very simple suggestion, which, as far as I could see, was that the Commission would take over the liability either to refund dead rents or allow them to be worked off against the new leases. The Commission have received a benefit, representing the liability to dead rents, and they are under an obligation to pass on the benefit so received.

Sir S. Cripps: It would be the least un-businesslike thing that the hon. Member and his friends have done under the Bill. If there is an existing lease, under which the coalowner is entitled to claim back the dead rent or minimum rent he has paid in the past against his future working, that arrangement will continue.

Mr. Peat: What will happen if the lease is not carried on?

Sir S. Cripps: If it is not carried on, it will come to an end, just as it does to-day. The ordinary mineral owners will bring it to an end whenever it terminates. The same will happen with the Commission. On the question of arbitration, it is surely quite obvious that if one is setting up an authority, such as the Commission, to reorganise the coal industry, it will be no good substituting an arbitrator for that Commission, because if you do you ore making the arbitrator the person who is going to plan the industry, and not the Commission. I intervened to protect the Minister against further onslaughts by telling him that we will support him.

5.42 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: If there were no dead rents there would be no check on obstructive tactics on the part of the Mining Association. If a mineowner, dealing with the Government in respect of new-leases, had no dead rent to pay on other leases, he would be able to go on strike. The object of dead rents is to ensure maximum production. It is the safeguard of the public. The dead rents are the exact parallel to the taxation or rating of land value. They are rents which are to be paid, year in and year out, whether the


land or the minerals are used or not. In so far as they fall on the mineowner to-day, they ensure the maximum production of coal. We want to ensure maximum production.

5.43 p.m.

Mr. Peake: Although I understand from the speech to which we have just listened that the right hon. Gentleman wants to continue under public ownership all the disadvantages of the coal industry at present, I rather understand, from what my hon. Friend said, that the Government might consider the merging of mineral rents at some future date. On that understanding, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman: Does the same thing apply to the other Clause—(Certain provision of new leases)—that the hon. Member does not wish to move it?

Mr. Peake: Yes, Sir.

The Chairman: In calling the next Clause, I must do so with a caution to hon. Members, because I have had some difficulty in reconciling myself to regarding it as being in order. As the Debate proceeds, I may possibly decide to withdraw it from the Committee as not in order.

Sir S. Cripps: On that point, could you assist us, Sir Dennis, by indicating the ground for your doubt?

The Chairman: I rather think that perhaps hon. Members had better wait until I raise an objection to it.

Sir S. Cripps: I am thinking that we do not want to waste the time of the Committee, and we might agree with you that it was not in order.

The Chairman: I should hesitate to suggest that any reason which might occur to me would not occur to the hon. and learned Member.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to dangers of subsidences.)

A local authority, through their duly authorised officer or representative, shall have the power to inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, all plans required to be kept or made under any statutory enactment of the workings of any mines or abandoned mines where, in the opinion of the local authority, the workings of such mines have affected or would be likely to affect any buildings or works owned by or vested in the local authority, or the surface of any land upon which the local authority contemplates the erection of any buildings or the construction of any works, and for the purpose of ascertaining the likelihood or probable extent of subsidence of the surface the local authority, through their duly authorised officer or representative, shall have power at all reasonable times and without payment to enter into and inspect the workings of any such mines and to take such measurements as they may consider necessary therefor.—[Mr. E. Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I welcome the opportunity of moving the Second Reading of this Clause and of making a few observations upon it. Frankly, I stand here as a very disappointed man. I put a question to the Secretary for Mines this afternoon, and it is worth repeating in order that we may keep his reply in retrospect. The question was not put down by me as an

individual but on behalf of those who comprise different political parties, a large municipality and a number of rural district councils and other public institutions. The question was:
To ask the Secretary for Mines, if he is aware of the public concern recently expressed in the North Staffordshire area over the effect of subsidence; and if he will reconsider the Government's policy on the question and take some steps to ease the burden on people caused by the effect of subsidence.
The reply of the Secretary for Mines was:
The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. With regard to the second part, I am afraid that there is no statement that I can usefully make at present.
That reminded me of our last week's experience, of a debate on the Coal Bill, of what I have read in the Press and of what I have heard going on behind the scenes since the Coal Bill was introduced. There can be concessions for coal barons, well-organised vested interests, and financiers, but no concessions from this Government to poor people who have sunk their life savings in property in mining areas of the kind of which I am speaking. But despite that pessimistic view of the situation which I am bound to take, I am still optimistic enough to believe that we may yet receive a statement from the President of the Board of Trade which will give some hope to the people for whom I am speaking. As a result of


what the Committee has already approved, provided another place endorses what has been agreed to, amalgamations will now be encouraged when the Bill becomes an Act. That will mean that in areas of the kind of which I am speaking there will be more concentration upon mining than ever before in the history of this country. Old workings will be left.
I have a picture in mind of an area a few miles from the division which I represent where voluntary amalgamations have already had a very deadly effect upon the area. According to the geological experts there are thousands of tons of coal still in that area, old workings are being flooded and subsidence is still taking place. As a result of these amalgamations the effect of subsidence will be intensified in districts of this character, and, therefore, it is more important than ever that municipalities should have the right of access to the plans of those old workings, and to plans when it is proposed to sink other pits. It is for these reasons that I am moving this Clause. In addition, I have had a recent conversation with very competent surveyors, who pointed out to me the importance of this Clause and the need for something of this character being done. These surveyors, public-spirited men with no political bias at all, are doing great work in these areas under great difficulties, and if this Committee is to be fair to them it is most essential that a Clause of this description should be inserted in the Bill in order that they may have access to old and new workings in carrying out their duties to the local municipality.
In these areas, particularly in the area I represent, the difficulties of the municipalities in regard to housing are beyond description. No one can realise them unless he is living in an area of this kind. It is the policy of the Government to encourage individuals to sink their life savings in the purchase of their own houses, and when they have done so they are subject to the subsidences and have to spend hundreds of pounds in carrying out repairs. This ought not to be a responsibility on the individuals who have purchased their houses. Local education authorities have also to meet a very serious situation as a result of mining subsidence. Indeed, as a result of the need for increasing the

educational facilities for the children in the area for which I am speaking, it is proposed to build a number of new schools and extend one or two of the old schools, but they are proposing as a result of subsidence to build these new schools miles-and miles away from where the children live. Such a situation is not fair to the municipality, to the children or to the people resident in the area. The Government ought to do something to ease the difficulties of these people. I have been looking at the Royal Commission's Report on mining subsidence, and this is what they say in regard to the Don area:
The results of underground coal workings are special in character, exceptional in their incidence and serious in their extent.
That might have been the position at that time, but now that situation is not exceptional and the seriousness can be found in many other areas. What the Royal Commission says with regard to the Don Valley is equally true, without any exaggeration at all, of the North Staffordshire area. In their final report the Royal Commission say:
In this context we suggest that in connection with preparation and also with the subsequent development of town planning and housing schemes local authorities should be entitled to accurate information as to the present workings and the future development of minerals.
That is all we are asking in the new Clause. Mr. Evan Williams who, of course, is not friendly to hon. Members on this side of the House, spoke as follows on behalf of the coalowners:
I think it is quite fair that any prospective builder should be entitled to obtain accurate information as to what is going on underneath and as to what is likely to go on underneath the land on which he is going to build.
And Mr. Williams went on to say that he would put the local authority in the same position in that respect. That is all we are asking. In dealing with poor people, or comparatively poor people, the Royal Commission say:
The other party, however, had to buy because a house in the area was for him a necessity, and the area was limited.
In their recommendations on page 54 they say:
We are satisfied from the evidence we have heard that in certain circumstances facilities should be given for the inspection of the underground plans of colliery companies.


That is all we are asking. We want the recommendation of the Royal Commission put into effect. Fourteen years after that report we are asking, not for anything revolutionary, not for Socialist proposals to be put into operation, but that the Government should carry out the recommendation of the Royal Commission. When we have discussed this matter before I have heard hon. Members opposite say—I can hear them saying so now—

An Hon. Member: You cannot see them.

Mr. Smith: The absence of hon. Members opposite is but typical. When we are considering anything which is going to affect vested interests, or landed proprietors or the coal barons, the House is full of hon. Members, but when we are considering anything which affects poor people, the unemployed or the miners, these benches are full but the benches opposite are just as we see them now. I have heard it asked, why build in these places, why run the risk of subsidence? The reply is that these people have to live in these areas, they obtain their livelihood there. Shopkeepers obtain their livelihood there and the municipality is bound to carry on. In the area for which I am speaking the whole city is built on a coalfield and subject to subsidence and, therefore, it is only reasonable that this Clause should be inserted in the Bill to enable a municipality to take steps to deal with this matter in the future. Despite the fact that I opened on a pessimistic note I hope the President of the Board of Trade will make on the question of subsidence a statement which will give some hope to these people. When I visit the South of England and see the parasitic centres and the way the people live, and I realise that they obtain their incomes from areas like the one for which I am speaking, I say, it is not fair or right or reasonable that this situation should exist, and I hope this Clause will do something to bring about an improvement.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Hollins: I have very little to add to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith), except to say that both my hon. Friend and myself, in proposing this new Clause, have the support of the local authority of Stoke-on-Trent, which contains the two

constituencies of Stoke and Hanley. All that the new Clause asks for is that the local authority shall be given power to obtain information which is absolutely essential when it has to deal with subsidence. There are other local authorities besides that of Stoke-on-Trent which suffer from subsidence, but the Stoke-on-Trent authority claims that there is no other city in the Kingdom which has such tremendous difficulties in finding suitable sites for new public buildings and re-housing. Stoke-on-Trent has spent thousands of pounds in getting reports from mining experts.
Under the new Clause, local authorities would have power to inspect and take copies of, or extracts from, all plans required to be kept under any Statutory enactment of the workings of any mines. Moreover, the local authority would be empowered to inspect the workings of mines at all reasonable times and without payment, and to take such measurements as they might consider necessary. Surely, that is not asking too much. It does not necessarily follow that information acquired in that way would be used for any other purpose than that stated in the new Clause, that is to say, to enable the local authority to come to a decision as to whether any proposed building on a certain site would be affected by subsidence. It is increasingly difficult in Stoke-on-Trent, with the very few sites which are left, for the local authority to come to any decision unless it has access to the workings for the purpose of taking extracts from the plans or making measurements. In a previous Debate on the Bill, I brought to the notice of the Committee the fact that present commitments, or commitments in the very near future, for creating rafts for the prevention of subsidence and the sinking of houses or for under-pinning schools amount to £140,000. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade to give this new Clause his earnest and full consideration, and, in order to assist local authorities who have such difficulty in finding suitable sites, to agree to the new Clause being added to the Bill.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I wish briefly to support the new Clause. I have been asked to do so by the South Shields Property Owners' Federation. It is not often that they


favour me with their instructions, or even with their requests, but they know I am a person who desires to represent the whole of the constituency, and not merely those enlightened individuals who cast their votes for me, because while there is life there is hope, even for members of a property owners' association. Owing to the growth of town-planning, it is usual, when property changes hand, for a very close search to be made in the offices of the local authority with regard to all the disabilities that may attach to the development of any piece of land. In an area such as South Shields, which, like Stoke-on-Trent, has been built on a number of coalmines, some of them very old ones, it is essential that there should be in the offices of the local authority available for that authority and for the inspection of those who contemplate buying land in the district—

The Chairman: If the hon. Member reads the Clause, he will see that it has reference to
any land upon which the local authority contemplates the erection of any buildings.
It does not refer to other persons who may contemplate erecting buildings.

Mr. Ede: I understand the Clause to mean that the local authority is to be supplied with the information, and there is nothing in the Clause which limits it in the publication of the information.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will read the Clause, he will see that it is very limited as to the information which the local authorities can get.

Mr. Ede: I am prepared to admit that they are limited in the information which they can get, but they are not restrained from recording such information as they can obtain on the plans which are in their offices and which are normally open to inspection by the public.

The Chairman: The hon. Member must look at the Clause. It is not a question of land which particular property owners acquire, but land in which, to put it shortly, the local authority is interested, either because the local authority has buildings on it or contemplates building on it.

Mr. Ede: I realise that that is the position as far as the new Clause is concerned, and that the information which

is legally obtainable by the authority is limited to that sort of information; but I suggest that it will be of very considerable value to the general public as indicating the lines of these workings and that it will avoid a good many of the difficulties which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend. It must be borne in mind that even under the Small Dwellings Acquisition Act, the local authorities grant very many mortgages to people who apply to them for assistance in the acquisition of their houses. Surely, a local authority will be entitled in those cases to ascertain whether they are lending their money in connection with a house that may be liable to subsidence.

The Chairman: If the hon. Member will read the Clause, he will see that there is nothing in it about the interests of mortgagees or lenders of money.

Mr. Ede: I do not desire to get involved in an argument with you, Sir Dennis, on points of that kind. May I put it in this way? This would be the recognition of the right of the local authority, limited according to the words of the new Clause to those parcels of land in which they have a direct interest, to information that is of the greatest value to them. It is the assertion of a principle that ought to have been recognised many years ago. It was recommended 13 or 14 years ago by the Royal Commission, and I can only hope that the Minister will not ride off on that fact. Though Mr. Evan. Williams cannot think so much about it now as he used to do because he is more occupied with issuing advertisements, he would probably be prepared to say to-day what he said in 1924. We could only hope that with so strong a supporter as Mr. Evan Williams we shall have the blessing of the Minister.

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: I was going to say that I have considerable sympathy with the object of the new Clause. I will add to the time-honoured formula that I would like to help the hon. Gentleman who moved it to get in substance what he seeks, although I did not think the new Clause is the best or the right way of doing it. The new Clause is confined to local authorities and I do not see why it should be so confined. The influential body which has given the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) a temporary and, I


hope, transient support, is as much entitled as the local authorities to the information. The right hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) has an Amendment to one of the Schedules which would try to give this sort of advantage to all who are interested, rather than to the local authorities alone. That, I think, is only right. The hon. Gentleman referred to the report of the Royal Commission and the statement made there by Mr. Evan Williams. I do not know whether he knows the subsequent history of that recommendation of the Royal Commission. When it came to be considered it was found that it was in conflict with a principle which had been adopted in most mining legislation, namely, the secrecy of information of this kind. It was felt, and felt rightly, that, although it might be right that a person who had a direct interest on the surface, that is, the property owner or the local authority, should get information, he should not broadcast the information which always by law had been protected with secrecy.
The result was that 10 years ago a guarantee was given by the mineowners that, although they would not publish this information, any one who had a reasonable interest—and that included the local authority—should have access to all the information that was necessary as regards both the past and the present workings of the mine. The guarantee went further and gave something which, I venture to say, is really of greater value to the local authorities or the property owners, but it is something which could hardly be secured by statute. They promised not only to give information about past and present workings, but to give, as far as they could, information as to the probable trend of future workings. In my submission the inquirer will probably be more interested in the way developments are going to take place and in being given some idea under what area of the surface coal is going to be extracted than he is in the actual plans of the old mine workings. That guarantee was given 10 years ago. I have made inquiries, and, as far as I can make out, there has never been any complaint made to the Mines' Department that the guarantee has not been implemented or that any person who reasonably required this information had not been given it. As far as the workings

of individual collieries are concerned, therefore, the present position under this guarantee, implemented as it has been, probably gives to local authorities and to others more than is asked for in this new Clause because it gives information as to future workings as well as information about past workings.
Let me pass to the new situation created by this Commission and to the part that the Commission could play in giving information of this kind. I doubt whether, the Commission itself would really be able to add anything to the information which can now be obtained from the individual collieries as regards areas which are already fully developed. Where an area is being fully worked the colliery itself is much more able to give the information as to the probable trend of its working than the Commission.

Mr. Hollins: There is nothing in the new Clause to enable the Commission to give information.

Mr. Stanley: I was going to say that I think the Commission could help. Although it is not put in the new Clause, I naturally assumed that hon. Members would desire that the Commission should give help if it is possible.

Mr. Hollins: The new Clause would empower us to go direct to the collieries to get the plans.

Mr. Stanley: I am afraid I am not making myself clear. I have explained that under the existing practice, which I have not heard challenged, people who have reasonable grounds for getting this information have access to individual collieries, and I am suggesting that, in addition to that, it may well be that the Commission will be able to give additional help to people who are interested. I do not think they could give much help in the developed areas. There the individual collieries could supply all the information that was necessary and give the best opinion as to future workings. Where, I think, the Commission can be of help is when it comes to a question of developing new areas. There the Commission, with the whole plans in its mind, will be able to give to the local authority or the property owner useful information as to the direction in which developments will take place. The Commission cannot be set up until this Bill becomes an Act, and I can give no pledge on behalf of a non-existing


body, but I can promise that as soon as the Commission is set up I will bring to its notice this Debate, the points that have been raised, and the suggestions that I have made in reply to them. Although I can give no undertaking, I have no doubt that the Commission, answerable to the public, will clearly have to give every consideration to the local authorities and the property owners under whose property there may be workings, and will, in fact, be ready to do so.

Sir S. Cripps: Does not Clause 45 present some difficulty, because under that Clause any person who discloses information obtained by him in the exercise of the powers conferred under Clauses 13 and 41 is liable to punishment? Will not the Commission be prohibited under pain of two years' imprisonment from disclosing any of that information?

Mr. Stanley: That is right, and that is why I am suggesting that the present system of going to the individual colliery undertakings for plans of existing workings should remain. Where I am suggesting that the Commission could help is by giving their opinion as to the trend of future developments, by simply saying, "We are proposing to give leases for the development of such and such a bit of coal, and therefore the working is likely to extend in such and such a direction." That is the kind of opinion, which is now given by the individual mineowner about his own bit of leasehold, which I am suggesting should be given by the Commission about the developments in any new area. I will certainly consider whether it would not be possible in the development of an entirely new area to include in the general direction the instruction that as far as possible the local authorities or other property owners concerned should be given some indication of the likely trend of the developments. In that way I think it will be possible to secure that the interested parties do have the fullest possible information as to past and present workings and, what I think is from their point of view even more important, be given in good faith the best possible opinion as to the likelihood of future working and be able by that means to avoid difficulties.

9.17 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood: I do not think we shall be as grateful to the right hon. Gentleman as he expects.

Mr. Stanley: I did not expect any gratitude.

Colonel Wedgwood: Future developments are not what we are suffering from. People may possibly get good advice from the Commission about the future, but we are troubled about the present. On that we have had a valuable statement but, unfortunately, it is but a statement and does not altogether coincide with the facts. Stoke-on-Trent is one of the places which have suffered most of all from subsidence, and the town clerk of Stoke-on-Trent asked us to put forward this new Clause because under the standing arrangement which, we are told, has been observed so constantly for ten years, Stoke-on-Trent fails to get the information they require. If that understanding had always been observed I do not think there would have been so much need for us to take action, but when a local authority itself is unable to get the plans it wants and to see where it can safely put its schools or its main drains or its roads, what chance is there of a small property owner getting the information from the colliery company? A small man has no chance whatever of finding out whether it is a particular pit which has caused the damage to his house. He would be laughed at if he applied to know.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that the new Clause deals with information for the local authorities.

Colonel Wedgwood: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman in his reply dealt both with property owners and with local authorities, and I thought that I might point out that a local authority is naturally in a better position than a small man to get the information, and that if the authority cannot get it the small man stands no chance at all. That agreement, which was to obviate all the necessity of legislation such as this, is not an agreement which is of much use, and the reason is that it is not binding on all colliery companies. They have the right to decide whether the demand is based upon "a reasonable ground." What seems reasonable to the local authority or the man whose property has suffered may not seem a reasonable ground to a colliery company, who might say, "The damage has been done by some other gentleman and not by me."


The position of the colliery owners in refusing this information in future will be infinitely stronger. Once this Bill is passed they will say, "I refer you to Clause 45. Under that Clause it is a punishable offence to disclose the secret plans of the workings of this mine." The position of the colliery company will be stronger and the position of the local authority weaker, so that the need for this Clause is greater after the right hon. Gentleman's speech than it was before. He is relying upon a bargain which may or may not have been carried out but which is less likely to be carried out in the future.

Mr. Stanley: Why?

Colonel Wedgwood: Because of Clause 45.

Mr. Stanley: The right hon. and gallant Member must realise that Clause 45 has no application to this case. It says:
Any person who discloses any information obtained by him in exercise of powers conferred upon him by Section thirteen or Section forty-one of this Act.
Surely it is not suggested that a coal-owner only has information as to the workings of his own mine because he has obtained it in the exercise of the power conferred by this Act.

Colonel Wedgwood: I think it puts an end to your promise and guarantee of the future.

Mr. Stanley: I must explain again, despite the briefing which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman received from his hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). The guarantee I gave as to the future and as to the Commission was not a guarantee that they would supply information which they had obtained, but would give an opinion as to the future developments which they would be responsible for directing.

Sir S. Cripps: I seem to have said something which was misunderstood. What I suggested was that the mine-owners might say that the passage of this Bill terminated the conditions under which they gave a promise 10 years ago and that the promise does not hold any longer. As they are to be approached on all these other matters could they not be approached to say whether that promise holds good?

Mr. Stanley: They have been approached and they are prepared to renew the promise.

Colonel Wedgwood: Could they not renew that promise in the shape of a legal Clause in this Bill? This is no more than a promise between an evanescent body of people and a Minister who changes. We have the authority of a Lord Chancellor for saying that a Bill such as this is the occasion on which such a change should be made. He said in reference to a matter like this:
If it is desired to alter the mining law in this drastic manner the proper place for such an innovation to take place is in a mining Bill.
Here is the mining Bill. Why are these plans to be kept so wonderfully secret? Why cannot they be inspected even by the authorised servants of a local authority? The refusal to submit these plans must give rise to a certain amount of suspicion. No other plans are kept secret like this, except the plans of Government battleships which it is desired to keep secret from the foreigner. The plans of every factory we put up are submitted to the local authority, as are the plans of every building, of every street. And they are public property, to be seen by everybody. Yet these plans of underground workings, which cannot be seen by the light of day are particularly, and especially, kept secret in an Act of Parliament pressed upon the Government by the owners of these properties. Is it that the workings that took place during the War were not exactly shown to the Government or to the local authority? Is it that they have sometimes trespassed underground upon other people's property? What is the reason for this special secrecy in connection with these plans of underground workings on which the safety of all property on top depends? The operative words of the Clause are:
A local authority shall have power to inspect all plans, made under any statutory enactment, of the workings of any mines where in the opinion of the local authority the workings of such mines would be likely to affect the surface of any land upon which the local authority contemplates erecting any buildings.
It seems to me that that is the very least that you could give a local authority. In Stoke-on-Trent they have lost, I should think, £100,000 in damage to public buildings or works. What we are asking is that when they put up public buildings


in future they should know the risk that they face. It seems to me madness to refuse them the right to know whether in putting up a school or running a sewer they can avoid the risk of complete destruction. What applies to Stoke applies even more to my own borough, where we own all the land, and the land we do not own we are in process of buying. We sell it to builders and all we want is an entire plan showing where the workings are. I cannot for the life of me see who is to suffer through these plans being in the hands of the local authorities, if the owners of the mines have worked them honestly and have not trespassed on other people's property or made the divisions between different mines thinner than they ought to be.
We have been turned down in every effort that we have made to improve the position of people who are suffering a grave injustice. That injustice was recognised by the Royal Commission, which was appointed only about a dozen years ago after an enormous agitation brought about by the injustice suffered by these same people. It reported and gave great satisfaction to those who got it appointed and who had grounds of complaint which were proved to be reasonable. The Government has done nothing since it reported, and it is refusing every single Amendment to this Bill designed to ameliorate the position of these people. They are small property owners, and they can be neglected. They are only the poorer local authorities—heavily rated local authorities—and they can be neglected. We appeal for people who are suffering from what is recognised as an injustice and the entire population of North Staffordshire—Labour, Liberal and Conservative, the entire local Press, and the entire town councils of Stoke and Newcastle ask for this small instalment of justice.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Lunn: When the right hon. Gentleman rose to reply to my hon. Friend's excellent speech, with its very modest request, I thought he was going to show a little generosity. He has shown none up to now to this side in anything in the Bill. He started off very well by not only saying that he was going to accept the principle of the new Clause, but that he thought that it did not go far enough and he would like to go even further. Before very long, however, he became as

timid as he has been all the time the Bill has been under discussion, and up to now we have no promise whatever of anything to meet the position stated by my hon. Friend. He asks that local authorities should have an opportunity of seeing the plans, should know the location of the seams, and be aware of what there is in the immediate district. There is nothing that can satisfy us except some words in the Bill. No promise by a Minister is sufficient to meet a position of this kind. It is not sufficiently laid down in law that knowledge that has been obtained during the last few years must be communicated to local authorities. In some cases when establishing housing sites they have been able to obtain the information by consulting the district valuer, but that is not the position generally with regard to information regarding the danger of subsidence. Everyone in an area that is likely to suffer from the effects of subsidence should be able to know whether or not they are building in a suitable place, and whether that danger exists.
I remember when there were collieries which had no plans, and there was no knowledge whatever of the circumstances. When I was a boy the water flooded into one pit and all the tubs and rails had to be left because no one knew the position in the colliery and what danger they were approaching. The only man left in the pit, where I was a workman and a checkweighman, who knew anything whatever about it was retained in the employment in order to give what little information he had to guide the company so that they should not work up to the danger point where water might break in. In my locality I have seen rows of houses which have been split in two because there was not the knowledge that there ought to have been, even in the colliery company, as to the risk to property in danger of subsidence.
I might give my own case. I live in a mining area which is very well mined, and within half a mile of one side of my house, into which I have just gone, is a colliery. The other day I was riding up to Leeds in an omnibus and I spoke to one of the miners who is working there. I said: "Where are you working now?" and he told me that it was only 200 or 300 yards beyond my house. There is immediate danger of subsidence there, but it is not in the common knowledge


of the people, and it ought to be possible for a person like myself, having been a member of a local authority for 20 years before I came here, to obtain information and to know what the dangers are. It is terrible when people who have spent all their savings on a cottage see it destroyed in a night. Since I became a Member for Parliament I have visited mining districts where I have seen the doors broken away from the walls, and bedroom floors falling down. Rows of houses have been destroyed by reason of subsidence, and compensation ought to be paid to the people by those who are responsible for it.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not the object of the new Clause, which deals with the giving of information to local authorities.

Mr. Lunn: I agree, Captain Bourne, but I was drawn to that point because I believe it, and I felt that it ought to be said. All we are asking is the opportunity to develop our knowledge as to the position of our own country and our own localities where people are threatened with dangers which are not clear to the eye and are not within immediate knowledge.
At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman sympathised with the new Clause. He went further than sympathy, and said that he agreed with the principle of it, and felt that it ought to go further. He said he would try to see that the Commission were informed of the matter, after they were appointed and the Bill had become an Act, so that they might see whether it was possible to take some steps in this direction. The right hon. Gentleman is not going very far if he inserts definite words in the Bill, which he must do or we must vote against this matter, because it is so serious in every mining area. We appeal to him to put in words that the necessary information shall be given to the local authority and to people who live in areas similar to those which have been mentioned in the Debate, in order that we may avoid dangers or be aware of them, should they at any time come upon us.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. Dunn: I hope that the Minister will consider this matter and take it a step further than the indications already given. He has promised to give the new Clause

sympathetic consideration and he told the Committee that the views of the Mining Association had been taken as to the ultimate effect of it upon the future working of the collieries. I have served upon local authorities for quite a number of years and we have been extremely anxious to carry this matter a stage further than a mere promise regarding the opinion of the Mining Association. The President of the Board of Trade said that he would consider giving instructions to the new Commission, when set up, regarding the objects of the new Clause. We have had a very large experience in our area, and we are anxious that this proposal should be carried into legislative effect by appropriate words being inserted in the Bill.
Any amount of sympathy is given all along the line to local authorities and everybody concerned, but nothing appears to be given which has any practical effect. I have not been asked to support this Clause on behalf of the Property Owners' Association. It sounds rather intriguing that my hon. Friend who sits at the back should be speaking on behalf of the property owners.

Mr. Ede: If you sat on a back bench you might be asked.

Mr. Dunn: I support the Clause on behalf of what, I believe, is the second largest rural district council in England and Wales. I have the direction of the Chair that I should be entitled to discuss the Clause from the standpoint of a local authority, whereas I should not be entitled to do so from the standpoint of a property owners' association. The local authority which asked me to support this Clause is larger in population and area than some of the county authorities in this country, and it is important that one should indicate the lines on which they have asked me to speak. For 14 miles right in the centre of my division, the effect of subsidence is affecting the operations of local authorities all along the Rother Valley.
My hon. Friend, in a very interesting speech introducing this Clause, called attention to what the Commission had to say with regard to Doncaster. I want to call the attention of the Committee to the actual facts relating to the Valley of the Rother. We now know that the Valley of the Rother has, within the last 15


years, sunk approximately a foot per year, a measure of the subsisdence that has been taking place all along the valley. To-day houses owned by the local authority, gas mains and water mains, as well as sewage farms, are all submerged in times of heavy rainfall to a maximum of five, six or seven feet of water. Some of the council houses in the Rother Valley are so badly affected that new access has had to be made into the property and the tenants reside in the bedrooms. When an appeal was made to the proper Departments for the matter to be considered, those Departments could do nothing.
Many views have been expressed with regard to preventing this subsidence, and it is not an answer for the President of the Board of Trade or his Department to indicate what should be done in regard to the future planning of the mining industry in these areas. It is not a question of these areas alone. Wherever coal is won in this country, subsidence is bound to take place. There is only one way of preventing it that I know of, and that is not to take the coal out. If you take the coal out, the surface will go down. I am asked to support this Clause on behalf of the Rotherham Rural District Council, whose property down the valley is affected for some miles. It is a serious matter to them, because their sewerage farms, their water mains, their gas mains, and their houses are all being affected. I hope the Minister will not try—I do not think he is trying—to impress the Committee that he is so anxious to put this matter right, because I believe that if he is anxious to put it right, he will not rely merely on promises from the Mining Association or on any directions to the Commission when it is set up. I think the only right and logical way to deal with the matter is to put the appropriate Clause in the Bill.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Pritt: I always feel a little nervous at addressing a crowded House, and therefore I am very glad that you, Sir, have called upon me at a relatively early hour, because although the Chamber is now filling up and the right hon. Gentleman can take courage from being supported by 1o or 12 Members on his back benches, it is not as crowded as it might be. Joking apart, I am not accusing him—

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Member says "Joking apart." I am wondering where he made a joke.

Mr. Pritt: It is like our complaints of a concession by the Government. As it is always a question whether it is a concession or not, so this is a question of whether there was a joke or not. I want to consider seriously what the right hon. Gentleman has done, because he has done two very important things. The first is that he has entirely conceded the principle for which the mover of the Clause is contending. He has conceded absolutely that it is right and proper that the private interest of the colliery owner ought to give way in the public interest to the desire of local authorities really to know the facts, which are often very expensive to ascertain and without which rights cannot be enforced or safeguarded without the trouble of litigation. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman said he would like to go further, or help us to go further, in various respects, so that we do not need to argue the case for the Clause, which is conceded.
Then comes this very much more important consideration. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Don't trouble to put it in an Act of Parliament. Our masters have told us that we can have the information from time to time without a Clause in the Bill." That is a very important principle and wants investigation, Lawyers and laymen in this country have been brought up to believe that the source of rights is the Common Law and the Statute Law, and textbooks have been written on the assumption, generally very bad ones, that those are the sources of our rights, but in future, if what the right hon. Gentleman says is correct, the textbooks will have to say, "This is the Common Law, and it does not give you a right to information; this is the Statute, and it does not give you a right to information, but on the authority of the President of the Board of Trade, speaking in the House of Commons on such and such a date, the coalowners of the country will in fact concede you the information to which the law does not entitle you." We are asked to accept as apparently better than a statutory right, which can be construed and enforced by a court, the promise of the colliery owners.
Now colliery owners are some of them good and some of them bad. We have one or two very good ones in this House, and we look up to them with reverence as a sort of exhibit; and there are others, not necessarily in this House, who are very bad. The history of the relations between both the industry and the public and the employer and the employed, in the colliery industry of this country is one of the most outrageous scandals in the last 200 years, and it is to an unorganised, uncertain, and shifting body of that kind that we are asked to look for our rights, which could be put in a Clause in five minutes. When we come to any particular case and some local authority wants some particular information and says to the board of the colliery, "May we have this information?" supposing the colliery replies—and we are told that this is the sort of thing that has happened, although we are told that other colliery owners have loyally abided by these somewhat ill-defined undertakings—" We do not think the undertaking covers this," you cannot go to the law court and say, "Will you decide whether I have a right to this," because the thing resides in a sort of gentlemen's agreement, and we know what gentlemen's agreements are. I do not know even whether this undertaking is to be found set down in writing anywhere. Would the right hon. Gentleman put it in a Schedule to the Bill? That would give it, of course, all by itself, no legal validity whatever, but at any rate a little more definiteness to people seeking, not for their rights, but for the privileges which we ought to accept, instead of our rights, as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
This is a very important and a very dangerous principle. Why should it not be carried a little further? Why should it not be applied to the Income Tax? Do not enact that people must pay Income Tax, but explain to the House, when it comes to the Income Tax, that the Income Taxpayers' Association has given an undertaking that they will pay, and if there is any dispute about how much is due, you will ask the taxpayer what he thinks is fairly due from him, and you will accept that from him. There are moments, when I have to pay my Income Tax, when, from a purely selfish point of view, I could quite commend that

sort of thing. We are being asked tonight to accept, instead of a statutory right, an unworded undertaking by a Mining Association or some other body connected with the colliery industry which will have to be implemented by the honour or good faith of undefined colliery owners, some of whom very likely do not even exist, if they do not yet own the mines, but will own them next year. I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to say that the best place in which to give people rights of great importance in this way is not an undertaking of the colliery owners, who really control the Government, but something tangible set down in the Statute.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Let it be remembered that we are not asking for information which need be disadvantageous to the coalowners. We are asking for information which, if it is not given, will be a disadvantage to the local authority. The right hon. Gentleman has made another promise. He has given an assurance that when that Commission is set up—and meantime he cannot speak for the Commission, because there is no Commission—he will approach the Commission and ask for an assurance that this matter will be considered. He has given a further assurance that the coalowners, as they have done in the past 10 years, so he said, will continue to furnish the requisite information to the local authorities.

Mr. Stanley: The important point is that they will be ready to give that undertaking as to the future, which I think the hon. Member will agree could not be secured by legislation.

Mr. Shinwell: The right hon. Gentleman points out that they will give such information as is at their disposal with regard to future developments. May I direct the right hon. Gentleman's attention to this important factor in the situation? He has given assurances on behalf of the Commission that is to be set up, arising out of the Bill, and he has given certain assurances on behalf of the coalowners, but none whatever on behalf of the Board of Trade. If on some future occasion the right hon. Gentleman is questioned in this House with regard to the assurances that he has given tonight, he may reply: "I have done my best. I have approached the Commis-


sion and I have an assurance from the coalowners; but the Commission find themselves unable to carry out the assurance they have given, for some reason or another, and the coalowners similarly are unable to fulfil the assurance they gave to me." He will be able to excuse himself on those grounds. Surely, that is a most unsatisfactory position for hon. Members. If there is a legitimate grievance—the right hon. Gentleman does not dispute the existence of a legitimate grievance; in fact, he expressed sympathy for the local authorities, the property owners and others affected by subsidences—surely we ought to have from the President of the Board of Trade a definite assurance in black and white that he will make himself responsible for the obligation into which he has entered to-night.
When the hon. Member for Rothwell (Mr. Lunn) was speaking he referred, in passing, to the question of compensation, and you very properly directed his attention to the fact that we are not discussing compensation in this Clause. Surely, that emphasises the modest character of the proposal. We are not asking for compensation in respect of subsidence, although a case could be made out for compensation. All that we are asking is that local authorities adversely affected by subsidences and will continue to be so affected by subsidences in future, should have the right to be informed, so that they may be able to proceed with social development in a normal fashion. As regards the question of information, may I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Mines Department for many years has been preparing a catalogue of abandoned mines. Abandoned mines are referred to in this Clause. Is it not possible for the local authorities to approach the Mines Department and obtain information in respect of the workings of abandoned mines, on the understanding that they will not disclose anything that is confidential or anything which might be disadvantageous to the coalowners? If the right hon. Gentleman will give a definite assurance on that head, not on behalf of the coalowners or the Commission but on behalf of the Mines Department, which is the responsible Department, it would be a concession worth having. It is a concession that the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to give. I hope that he will meet what I

regard as a modest request and one that is practicable.
With regard to the question of future development, the Commission to be set up is to be entrusted with the reorganisation of the mining industry. Arising from that, there is to be amalgamations of mining undertakings. Despite what has been said about the closing down of pits, it will not be disputed that here and there, inevitably, some pits will be closed. Apart altogether from the powers of the Commission under the Bill, in the normal process of events in the mining industry there will be some closing of pits. Wherever there is closing of pits and steps are taken to protect the workings, because there will be waterlogging in some coalfields particularly in South Wales, where the flooding is so acute that it threatens adjoining mines which are working, surely there will be an obligation on the Commission, which has nothing to do with promises, assurances or guarantees, but something which should appear in the Bill, making it dear beyond peradventure that the local authorities in some way should be safeguarded. That is all that we ask.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has given several promises. He gave a promise last Thursday. What will arise from that promise we shall see on the Report stage. This afternoon on the question of voluntary amalgamations he gave a promise, but one cannot legislate by promises alone. We cannot have legislation by addendum. I do not know whether it is possible, following the line of argument taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) to introduce into the Schedule the series of promises, assurances and guarantees which the right hon. Gentleman has given. Let me put it more modestly. Is it possible at some stage in our proceedings to have furnished to every hon. Member a list of the promises, guarantees and assurances which have been presented in the guise of concessions, so that we may know where we stand?
Apart altogether from these matters, which may have no strict relevance to the Clause under review, I would repeat that we are making a most modest proposal and one which the right hon. Gentleman could properly concede. He could give on his own behalf, not on behalf of some second or third party but on behalf of


himself, the Government, and the Mines Department in particular, an assurance that if local authorities do apply for information which it is desirable that they should have it will not be withheld.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: The President of the Board of Trade was so sympathetic in his reply that I thought at first he was going to accept the new Clause as it stands. But he went on to say that powers already existed, and that he would advise the Commission to take a note of the speeches made on this occasion and see what could be done about them. If there is that sympathy and understanding on the benches opposite, why cannot the Government accept this new Clause and satisfy us for once on a matter of this kind? After all the local authorities are not all Labour bodies. Every council has to look after the situation in its own district, and we want Parliament to recognise what the duties of these local bodies are. All we ask is that they should have sufficient power to examine any site which they think is dangerous, before taking it over for housing or other purposes. In mining areas we find instance after instance of the danger and damage which is caused at the present time. I was not aware that local bodies had any power of this kind at all, and I was surprised to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said in that connection.
In the district from which I come, there are houses falling down because of mining works underneath. There is one housing site which commands a splendid view. When the council took it over I said that they had got one of the best sites in the country, but it turned out that the houses were built over a fault. Strata cutting across the coal seam at this point caused a fault and as a result of the conditions underground the houses on one side of the fault are slipping away and have become almost uninhabitable. Why should not local authorities have the power to go into mines at their own expense, and inspect the underground conditions, so as to be able to avoid building upon sites where there is a likelihood of such a danger arising? In our district the gasworks has been losing thousands of cubic feet as a result of mining subsidences, dislocating the communications between the gasworks and surrounding towns. These conditions are not con-

fined to any one place like Stoke-on-Trent. They occur in every mining village, and a Bill like this gives Parliament the opportunity of showing in a practical form how steps can be taken to prevent these occurrences.
I make an appeal to the President of the Board of Trade. He has had a very difficult time. He has had to give way to the superior battalions of the coalowners. Probably he did not want to do so, but he was anxious to get this Bill through and he bowed to the onslaught. I am not blaming him in that respect. I know that Parliamentary procedure from time to time has to give way to a certain volume of opinion, and in view of the fact that the coalowners had behind them so many Members on the other side of the House, I cannot blame the right hon. Gentleman for giving in to them. But here we are putting forward a comparatively small but sound and practical proposal. The President admits that there is something in it. He has almost indicated that he would go even further than we propose. All we ask him to do is to accept this new Clause, and if the Government find that there are other means of dealing with the matter let them put in those other means. We have not heard any attempt to-night from the other side to dispute our arguments and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, recognising what Parliament stands for and recognising also the fact that an unanswerable case has been made out for this new Clause, will agree to give us what we ask.

10.6 p.m.

Mr. E. J. Williams: I understand that the difficulty of the right hon. Gentleman is with regard to future workings and things of that kind, and that he would be prepared to accept this new Clause if there were attached to it some assurance to private property associations and others, and if he also had some kind of assurance that the possibility of future developments would not be revealed by local authorities to private firms for some ulterior purpose. I cannot understand what ground there is for the right hon. Gentleman's objections to the Clause. When the Commission takes over the minerals of the country, surely they will have in their purview copies of all plans of the collieries that are being worked, and if a new shaft is to be sunk, the area that is to be taken will be known in


advance. All those things are known to colliery proprietors before they commence the development. They will have to decide whether they will work the surface measures first or the deeper measures first and it is really the surface measures that are largely responsible for subsidence—what are called "house coal measures" cutting relatively thin and often draining surface water.
It should not be difficult for a colliery company to deposit plans at the request of a local authority in order that the local authority may know whether it is proposed to work the thin surface seams first, or the deeper measures first. Such information as that supplied to a local authority would obviously be for the purpose of protecting public buildings or any other structural works which were in prospect. Surely a local authority is entitled to that information. I have brought this matter before the House on several occasions. We talked at one time about the question of compensation and I referred to the position in one valley in my constituency. I visited those collieries and found that the backs of the houses had completely fallen out and I pointed out the hardships which were entailed on the owner in these cases. The whole of his life savings had been spent in producing a house which was lost almost overnight, and he had no remedy whatever I have pointed out also that the local authority is spending hundreds, possibly thousands of pounds in digging trenches to safeguard its water mains, sewers and so on.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), I had no knowledge, and I doubt whether the local authorities have any knowledge, of the undertaking or assurance given by the Mineowners' Associations 10 years ago. I know that they have been anxious for years to obtain this information, and I am certain that most of them were ignorant of the fact that it could have been obtained on request. But, even if they had known of it, no specific obligation is placed upon the coalowners to deposit plans for examination by the local authority or by owners of property who are anxious to construct buildings in given areas. I am certain that, unless a Clause of this kind is agreed to, we shall find that the coal-owners will have a privilege that is not possessed by any other property owners. The local authorities can upon request

obtain plans from all other property owners with regard to new construction or anything of the kind, but the mineowners are put in a singular and select position. Why that should be the case it is very difficult to understand. That privilege, which they apparently have, should no longer obtain if it is prejudicial to the public interest and to the interest of property owners in areas in which seams of coal are being worked.
I cannot understand why the President of the Board of Trade is not prepared to meet us in this very reasonable request. It is not made as benefiting us as individuals, or the party that we represent. It is common knowledge that most authorities include members representing the political predilections of hon. Members opposite, and those local authorities are making the same demand that is being made by others which have Labour majorities. The President of the Board of Trade, however, is not prepared to concede this demand to local authorities who have a just case for protection and for an assurance that, when they spend their ratepayers' money, they will get the maximum value for it. I hope that, after this long Debate, the President will concede the Clause.

10.19 p.m.

Mr. David Adams: I fail to understand why we should not place upon the Statute Book an obligation on colliery owners to provide this information for local authorities. I was born and bred in the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, scarcely any part of which is free from colliery workings, but I cannot assert, as some others have done, that as a local authority we have suffered much from subsidence. That is due to the fact that we have taken the precaution of obtaining information before undertaking any of our large buildings, and because, by rafting in accordance with modern methods, we have been able to construct over colliery workings some of our college buildings and other municipal works in such a way that they have suffered no detriment. It is true, however, that where as a local authority we were not able to take such precautions, as for instance, in the construction of our main drains, roads and other public works, we have suffered very considerable financial outlay, which would have been avoided had the information that we ask should be statutorily provided been dis-


closed. While the municipality is protected, if that information for which we are asking had been in the town hall there is little doubt that the private builders would have been made acquainted with the colliery workings in areas which had been built upon in and about the city of Newcastle and which have suffered very considerably from subsidence. The division I represent has constantly suffered very substantially from colliery subsidence.
This information ought not to be withheld on any consideration whatever. Under this Bill, the colliery owners, apparently, are to be placed in a preferential position. Disclosure of this information would not injure them, financially or otherwise, but it would benefit the whole community considerably, and many thousands of pounds would be saved by private individuals to whom this information would be made available. We ask, therefore, that it should be a statutory obligation to enable the representatives of local authorities, without fee or charge, to make themselves acquainted with colliery workings, and, if it be possible, to know the direction of subsequent colliery workings, so that the community at large should not continue to suffer this great hardship, which constitutes such a burden in our colliery districts, often on members of the working community who have invested their all in house property.

10.22 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the questions put by my hon. Friend, especially in regard to abandoned workings? Surely he must appreciate, as a result of this Debate, that the 10-year holding in mining is a rather different thing from what we are concerned about. We are surely entitled to ask when a Bill is passing through the House on this subject that we should not be put off with an undertaking given outside. We are here to legislate, and if a thing is right it is right to put it in the Bill.

Mr. Stanley: In reply to the question of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), the answer is. Yes. When the statutory period of secrecy has expired the Ministry of Mines will call for particulars of tenure.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that no local authority can obtain information as

to the working of abandoned mines in their area within 10 years of the mine being abandoned?

Captain Crookshank: That is provided in the 1911 Act. I expect the hon. Member will remember that after 10 years have elapsed they have to be opened.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to understand that the Mines Department cannot render any assistance whatever to local authorities in respect of subsidence?

Mr. Stanley: In the 10 years' period.

Mr. Shinwell: A good deal may happen in the course of 10 years. So we may take it that the Mines Department is valueless in this regard. What remains of the assurances the right hon. Gentleman has given?

Mr. Stanley: The assurances I gave did not apply to the 10 years' period. They applied to plans in the possession of the local authorities. I explained before that I was not prepared to legislate, because I was not prepared for the general disclosure of these plans, which is contrary to the policy which has always been adopted in the past. I was giving no guarantee, but only the renewal of a guarantee, which has been in existence now for 10 years and which, I pointed out, goes even further than what is asked for in the Clause and gives a valuable additional guarantee. I will look into this point with regard to the abandonment of mines with the Secretary for Mines before the Report stage.

Sir S. Cripps: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is not prepared to depart from what has happened in the past with regard to secrecy. What was the object of secrecy? It was, apparently, that where you have a lot of different joint owners there might be trouble if plans were disclosed. As you are going to have the Commissioner and only one royalty owner, any object of secrecy must have disappeared. You will have a single royalty owner who will know exactly what all the workings are in every part, and there can be nothing to conceal which, after all, is the object of secrecy. You are not concealing something from the complainant. It does not matter to the man who is leasing the next mine as to what the workings are in


your mine. You have a single landlord for the whole land who controls the working between the two, and the whole object of secrecy has disappeared. It really is no answer—I put this with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman—to say that, because things have been, they shall remain.
We are changing all sorts of things in this Bill. Why not change the opportunities of local authorities for getting information? What conceivable reason can there now be for keeping the plans of an abandoned mine secret for 10 years? What conceivable reason can there be in common sense or anything else? I am sure that neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Secretary for Mines can think of one. If they can, will they let us know what it is? They cannot think of one, either of them, at this moment. I will sit down immediately if either of them can get up and give the Committee a single reason in their opinion, and they are the persons thoroughly conversant with the whole matter. Think as they may—and one can see how thoughtful they both are in the matter—nothing comes forth. One may fairly assume, therefore, that, on the face of it, prima facie there is nothing to

prevent the alteration of the system, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman in all seriousness, bearing in mind this great change which is being made as regards ownership, to consider, before the Report stage, whether he cannot put in something of this kind, unless he can give some better reason. We certainly do not see anything at the present time.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Riley: If I understand the Bill, it is mainly to promote the public interest in connection with mining development. Is it not also equally in the public interest that the local authorities should have the opportunity of knowing, before they embark upon public works, the conditions of the mine in the district in which they are operating? What have the Government to say to the local authorities on this matter? Do they think that local authorities ought to "have this information so as to enable them to avoid injury and unnecessary expense? Is not the declared object of the Bill to defend the public interest?

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 228.

Division No. 89.]
AYES.
[10.30 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Garro Jones, G. M.
Logan, D. G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Lunn, W.


Amman, C. G.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Macdonald, G. (lnce)


Attlee, Rt. Hen. C. R.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
McEntee, V. La T.


Banfield, J. W.
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McGhee, H. G.


Barnes, A. J.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Maclean, N.


Barr, J.
Grenfell, D. R.
Marshall, F.


Batey, J.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Maxton, J.


Bellenger, F. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Messer, F.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Milner, Major J.


Benson, G.
Groves, T. E.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Bevan, A.
Guest, Dr. L. H. (Islington, N.)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Broad, F. A.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Nathan, Colonel H. L.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Harris, Sir P. A.
Naylor, T. E.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Buchanan, G.
Hayday, A.
Oliver, G. H.


Cape, T.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Owen, Major G.


Cassells, T.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Parker, J.


Charleton, H. C.
Holdsworth, H.
Parkinson, J. A.


Chater, D.
Hollins, A.
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Cluse, W. S.
Hopkin, D.
Price, M. P.


Cocks, F. S.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.


Cove, W. G.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
John, W.
Ridley, G.


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Riley, B.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ritson, J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Sir H. Haydn (Merioneth)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Day, H.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Dobbie, W.
Kelly, W. T.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Ede, J. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Sexton, T. M.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kirkwood, D.
Shinwell, E.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Lathan, G.
Silkin, L.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Foot, D. M.
Leach, W.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Gallacher, W.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Gardner, B. W.
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, E. (Stoke)




Smith, T. (Normanton)
Viant, S. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Soransen, R. W.
Watkins, F. C.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Stephen, C.
Watson, W. McL.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Westwood, J.



Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
White, H. Graham
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Thurtle, E.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Tinker, J. J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Ellis, Sir G.
Nall, Sir J.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Elliston, Cant. G. S.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Emery, J. F.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Atholl, Duchess of
Emmott, C. E. G. C.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Findlay, Sir E.
Patrick, C. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Peake, O.


Balniel, Lord
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Perkins, W. R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Petherick, M.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Gower, Sir R. V.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Beechman, N. A.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Pilkington, R.


Bernays, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Porritt, R. W.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Grimston, R. V.
Procter, Major H. A.


Blair, Sir R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Radford, E. A.


Boulton, W. W.
Guest, Lieut.-Colonel H. (Drake)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N. W.)
Rankin, Sir R.


Brass, Sir W.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Hannah, I. C.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Harbord, A.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Bull, B. B.
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Ropner, Colonel L.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Butler, R. A.
Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Rowlands, G.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Hepworth, J.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Higgs, W. F.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Holmes, J. S.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hopkinson, A.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Salt, E. W.


Channon, H.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Samuel, M. R. A.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hulbert, N. J.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Christie, J. A.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hunter, T.
Savery, Sir Servington


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Hutchinson, G. C.
Scott, Lord William


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Solley, H. R


Colfox, Major W. P.
Keeling, E. H.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Cook, Sir T. R. A. M. (Norfolk, N.)
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S. W.)
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Spens. W. P.


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Storey, S.


Craven-Ellis, W.
Lewis, O.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Critchley, A.
Liddall, W. S.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Lipson, D. L.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Cross, R. H.
Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Crossley, A. C.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Tate, Mavis C.


Crowder, J. F. E.
Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Magnay, T.
Thomson, Sir J. D W.


Culverwell, C. T.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Touche, G. C.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Dawson, Sir P.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R. L.


De Chair, S. S.
Markham, S. F.
Turton, R. H.


De la Bère, R.
Marsden, Commander A.
Wakefield, W. W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.


Denville, Alfred
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Doland, G. F.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Dorman-Smith, Major Sir R. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Moreing, A. C.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Duncan, J. A. L.
Morgan, R. H.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Dunglass, Lord
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Edmondson, Major Sir J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)







Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.



Windsor-dive, Lieut.-Colonel G.
Wragg, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wise, A. R.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Captain Hope and Captain




Dugdale.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation for employees of mineral agents in case of loss of employment or diminution of emoluments)

(1) The Commission shall pay compensation to any employee of a mineral agent who by virtue of the acquisition by the Commission of all coal and mines of coal and properties and rights annexed thereto or of the management thereof as in this Act provided or of anything done in pursuance of or in consequence of the provisions of this Act suffers any direct pecuniary loss by reason of the determination of his employment or the diminution of his emoluments.

(2) The aggregate amount of the compensation payable under this section shall be reduced to a capital sum and the amount thereof shall be deducted from the aggregate amount of compensation payable under Section six of this Act.

(3) The provisions of the Fourth Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1933, as modified and adapted by regulations to be made by the Board of Trade, shall apply in the determination and payment of the compensation payable under this section.

(4) For the purpose of this section mineral agent shall mean any person, firm, or corporation whose business consisted at the date of the passing of this Act wholly or mainly of dealing as agent with such properties as are by this Act acquired by the Commission and with rights ancillary thereto whether by way of valuation, of arrangement of contracts, of negotiation of purchases, sales, leases, or mortgages, or of management of such properties or other functions as agents in connection therewith.—[Mr. Ridley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Ridley: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause is designed to avoid what otherwise would be a considerable hardship and disability. I wish that the provisions of the Bill covered the whole consequences of the Bill, and not part of them. I shudder to contemplate what the effect of widespread amalgamation will be in terms of unemployment without protective provisions such as were put in the Railways Act, 1921. Since all the appeals made to the Government for that purpose from this side of the Committee have elicited no response, but have produced from the Minister the comment that the proposals to protect the miner against the consequences of the Bill were fantastic, I will limit myself to the terms of the new Clause. Parliament has

always insisted on adequate compensation for dismissal or other unfavourable circumstances arising out of amalgamations which Parliament has approved. Those provisions have usually been based on the local government legislation of either 1888 or 1933, as was the case of the Railways Act, 1921, and of the London Passenger Transport Board. It has been assumed by legislation that all employés of the amalgamated undertakings become the employés of the amalgamated undertaking itself, and the acquisition by the amalgamation of rights and property has also meant the acquisition of liabilities, and in acquiring those liabilities it acquired the employés of the amalgamated undertakings. It was bound in consequence either to compensate them for loss of office if it failed to continue to employ them, or, if it continued to employ them at a lower rate of remuneration, to compensate them for the difference between the two standards.
The State now proposes, through the medium of the Commission, to acquire mining royalties and property, and if the new Clause I submit is not accepted, that acquisition will have serious consequences for the people covered by it. The existing relationship between the royalty owner and the mineowner requires the engagement by the royalty owner of a body of men known as mineral agents, mineral surveyors and mineral engineers. They are technical men with special qualifications for doing a special job. They are a small number, amounting, so far as I can make out, to between 250 and 300. Their job is to make surface and underground surveys, to prepare plans for royalty owners, to inspect workings, to measure up sections and share the area of coal worked, to calculate and agree with the colliery companies the amount of royalties to be paid to the royalty owners, to agree with the colliery company the amounts to be deducted for dirt and inferior coal, to keep plans, to make valuations, to collect royalties and to disburse them to whoever may be entitled to them. The expectation and the fear are that this Bill will eliminate the need for the continued employment of this small body of people.
Inevitably there will be a number of dismissals, and that will mean the placing permanentliy out of industry of a proportionately large body of men, with no hope that they will ever again find a job in the professional occupation within which alone they can hope to earn a reasonable standard of life. In that sense they will join the unskilled labour market. More than that, few, if any, of these men, because of the small size of the firms, are members of statutory superannuation funds. On the contrary they have been employed by firms which have been accustomed to make ex gratia pension allowances to them, and those also will go. I ask the Committee to observe that the number of men concerned is small. The aggregate amount of compensation required under the terms of the Clause is infinitesimal compared with the global sum which will be paid to the royalty owners themselves; and I ask the Committee to agree that only the barest justice will be done by requiring the royalty owners, who are themselves to be generously compensated, to compensate in their turn these people whose services they will no longer require.
I would only add that the global compensation figure is based upon the gross revenue of the royalty owners, and that is a basis which must include the expenditure undertaken by the royalty owners in the employment of the men referred to. Therefore, in my view the global sum includes a figure which could properly be attached for compensating these people. The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head, and I suffer his negation for the moment. I submit, finally, that we should not take a step under Part I of this Bill which will place out of employment a very considerable number of men with professional and technical qualifications who will have no hope again of ever being able to employ those qualifications in a way which will enable them to earn an ordinary reasonable standard of life. The House should not do that without requiring the royalty owners, whose employés these people were, to compensate them for the disturbance and the loss of office.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Stanleys: The Clause refers to a small class of people who number, I should imagine, from inquiries I have

made, something like 100, or perhaps rather more than that, who serve either in a wholly or semi-technical capacity mineral agents now employed by the mineral owners. The hon. Member has confined his Clause to such people as are employed by firms wholly or mainly dealing with such property, and they are, therefore, quite a limited class of people, whose skill, I agree, is of a rather limited technical character and who might find it difficult to get employment in a different kind of work. Let us consider what will be the reactions of the passage of the Bill upon the employment of those people. For four and a-half years there will be no difference at all, because it is not suggested that until the actual vesting of the property in the Commission takes place there is any reason to anticipate any loss of employment among them. Therefore, to begin with, they have four and a-half years' notice. After that the Commission will have to do with respect to their properties exactly the same thing as the royalty owners now do with the same properties when in their hands. Exactly the same kind of work will have to be done by someone for the Commission as is now being done by these people and those who employ them for the individual royalty owners.
Therefore, not only is there 4½ years' notice, but there is at the end of it every prospect of continuing employment in exactly the same kind of work. I think, though, it is right that these people in their capacity, just as the employers in their capacity, should have the first chance of the jobs that are going under the Commission, and that priority should be given in employment to those who may be losing their employment because of the Act. I think the Government should give an assurance that it will represent to the Commission the desirability of offering priority of appointment, whether as a staff, which covers the case raised by this Clause, or as agents, which covers the case of my hon. Friend, to competent persons or firms who have had experience in a technical or semi-technical capacity and who for not less than 10 years prior to the passing of the Act have been wholly or mainly engaged in that class of work. They will also suggest to the Commission that in the interests both of themselves and of the classes of persons concerned, it will be desirable for them to invite a committee representing the professional


interests of such persons or firms to cooperate with them in a consulative capacity in regard to the offering of these appointments. I think that offers a very fair chance of the continuance of the employment of these people under the new employers.
I must correct a statement that the hon. Member made. He said that the global figure which forms the subject of the agreement between the Government and the royalty owners for the purchase of coal was arrived at before the deduction of these expenses. That is not the case. The net average annual figure, upon which the global sum is finally determined, was arrived at after the deduction of a sum representing the expenses of management of the property. In any case, therefore, I could not accept that this compensation should be deducted from that global sum agreed with the royalty owners.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Leases not to be refused unreasonably.)

Any person aggrieved on the ground that the Coal Commission has either—

(a) unreasonably refused to grant him a lease; or
(b) granted to him a lease on terms that are unreasonable

shall have the right to appeal to the Railway and Canal Commission whose decision shall be final.—[Mr. H. G. Williams.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

10.54 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

Sir S. Cripps: On a point of Order. Has not the principle of this Clause been negatived already on the Clause moved by the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—(Certain provisions of new leases)

The Deputy-Chairman: The Committee will realise that I am in a little difficulty about this because I did not hear the Debate. I understand that there was a difference between the two points.

Sir S. Cripps: I think the Committee will agree that the Debate there was whether this should be left finally in the decision of the Commission or should be put in the hands of another person. The

Debate proceeded on the question whether the Commissions should be master in their own house, and on that basis I understand that the Committee turned down the Clause.

Mr. H. G. Williams: As I understand it, the Debate on that new Clause covered in part the underlying principle of mine, but in the main it dealt with people who are already in possession of leases, whereas mine deals with people who may never have had a lease, and therefore it covers a very much wider point. If hon. Members will look at the proposed new Clause—

The Deputy-Chairman: I have made inquiries of the Chairman of Ways and Means as to the circumstances, and I understand that this Clause was not called previously.

Sir S. Cripps: It was specifically dealt with, and I am sure that the Secretary for Mines will bear me out and say that he also particularly dealt with this point. I dealt with it in the remarks I made at that time and I thought that it had been thoroughly debated.

Captain Crookshank: If I am to say anything on this point it is that I understood, with the hon. and learned Member opposite, that the Clause had been dealt with.

The Deputy-Chairman: I did not hear the Debate, and as it has been passed by the Chairman I had better leave it and allow it.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Whatever course the previous Debate may have taken does not alter the fact that my new Clause deals with a point not covered by the new Clause to which reference is being made. If hon. Members will look at Clause 2 they will see that the Commission are given the duty of granting coalmining leases. I am moving this new Clause solely because I want to preserve a measure of liberty to the people of this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh! "] I know that hon. Members opposite believe in the Socialist principle and do not believe in liberty, but that is no reason why I should not do my best for what I happen to believe in. This new Clause was put forward as an Amendment to Clause 2, but my draftsmanship was not sufficiently succesful, and I was told that it was not appropriate at that point, and


my attention was directed to another Clause. I tried there and failed, and I was told that the appropriate place to introduce the point was in a new Clause. I therefore felt a little sad that the hon. and learned Gentleman should try to trip me up after the Chairman had previously tripped me up twice.
A large number of people are owners of coal. They are so numerous that if any citizen thinks he would like to own a coal mine the chances are that he will find some coalowner willing to do business with him and grant him a lease. [HON. MEMBERS: "At a price! "] If he is reasonable he will be able to obtain a lease on terms which, if his judgment is right, will enable him to conduct the coal mine properly. The only coal mine in which any coal miner wants to work is one that is conducted properly, and no coal miner wants to work in a coal mine which is conducted at a loss. If we are to monopolise the ownership of coal, only one authority will be in a position to grant a lease, and that is the Commission. If only one authority has the right to grant a lease, and an unqualified right to refuse to grant a lease to any particular person, it is clear that the rights of the citizen to become the owner of a coal mine or to start a new coal mine are destroyed.
Therefore, I think hon. Members will see that in my Clause there is involved the fundamental principle of the liberty of the British subject to enter into any occupation that he desires to enter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I know that hon. Members opposite are anxious to destroy the liberty of the people, and I am glad they are interrupting me because it gives me the opportunity of enforcing the point that they are the enemies of liberty. The terms of the Clause are very reasonable. It imposes upon the Commission the duty of granting leases, but they are free to refuse the granting of a lease, though I want to attach to that that they shall not refuse to grant a lease unreasonably, in other words, because they do not like you or because they wish to direct the whole future development of the industry, which I do not think is desirable. I think that in the long run the fact that a large number of people are free to make decisions leads to better results than one person acting as a dictator and having the

sole power to make decisions. Therefore, I do not want the Commission to be in a position to refuse to grant a lease to anybody who comes along without giving any reason at all. In other words, if they refuse to grant a lease, they must have good reasons for so doing. Furthermore, if they grant a lease, they must not include in it unreasonable terms.
I am pleading a cause to this Committee. If I had been pleading this cause in any House of Commons elected up to 10 years ago, I should not have had a single opponent. It is an interesting commentary on the change of public opinion that it is even necessary for me to propose this Clause. It is a significant commentary on the political thought of this country that a Government can introduce a Bill which presumes that an autocratic body can deprive the citizen of his rights, and the fact that a Member should seek to preserve those rights is regarded as a matter for jeering by a party that professes to call itself the champion of democracy. It is an interesting comment on our political philosophy. I am one of those who with others are trying to preserve a measure of freedom in this country. It is not easy. We see freedom being completely eliminated over half of what we call the civilised world since 20 years ago, the right of free expression of views destroyed, the right of free entry into an industry destroyed, and the right of the citizen to enter into any occupation that he thinks fit to enter destroyed. I do not want any statutory barrier placed in his way to enter any occupation, because I believe it is vital. The freedom of the people, free economic development, the preservation of free institutions, the preservation of that very democracy which we all think we stand for. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I do not mind the jeers of those who look forward to the time when they will all be little Lenins and little Stalins, but I am concerned with the idea that we should not in our Acts of Parliament, even by appearance, do things which destroy the right of people to choose their own occupations. It is in that sense and in the hope that I shall receive some support that I move the Second Reading of this Clause.

11.5 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I differ from the Mover of this Clause only on one point,


when he says that public opinion has so changed that it now accepts the kind of dictatorship that is indicated in the Bill. I am convinced that public opinion does not accept it. There is a very widespread feeling of resentment against the dictatorial powers that are claimed in the Bill. I hope the Minister will consider this Clause. It is unreasonable that the authority in whom is to be vested the right to grant leases should have an absolute and unfettered right to decide whether or not a lease should be granted, and be entitled to impose whatever kind of conditions they wish to impose in granting a lease. There ought to be some kind of appeal against an abuse of the authority to be reposed in the new Commission. If the terms of this Clause are not regarded as satisfactory, I suggest to the Government that there ought to be some kind of appeal against abuse in the granting of leases, otherwise we may find that not only a new person endeavouring to come into the industry may be deprived of the lease which he seeks, but an existing colliery undertaking seeking a lease of adjoining coal may resent or feel aggrieved at the decision in regard to their application. There ought to be some appeal in cases of that.

11.7 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: The Mover of the Clause admitted that he was not here when we were discussing an earlier Clause which dealt inherently with the same matter. The earlier Clause was a proposition that if the renewal of a lease was unreasonably withheld, there should be the right of arbitration. This Clause says that if a new lease is unreasonably refused there should be reference to the Railway and Canal Commission. The principle which we negatived earlier is the same principle that is brought forward here.

Mr. H. G. Williams: It is not the same principle. The first question was whether a person already in the industry is entitled to a renewal of his lease. That is a question as to whether he is entitled to continue. The underlying principle of my Clause is whether a person who is not in the industry is entitled to enter the industry. That is a fundamentally different principle.

Captain Crookshank: It does not fundamentally alter the answer I am going to give, and for this reason. What this Bill

seeks to do and what we have passed in earlier Clauses, so long ago that the facts are already forgotten, is to place the coal of the country under a statutory body which will, according to Clause 2 (1), so manage the business
consistently with the provisions of this Act as they think best for promoting the interests, efficiency and better organisation of the coalmining industry.
At the same time under Clause 2 (2) they do that subject to the general direction of the Board of Trade in
matters appearing to the Board to affect the national interest.
Therefore, this body, which will be charged with very great powers and important functions, will surely be the body above all, from the vast knowledge of the industry which they will accumulate, best fitted to decide what is in the interests of the industry, subject to what is the national interest. The suggestion of this Clause is that if they refuse to grant a lease there is to be recourse to the Railway and Canal Commission. The reason why the Railway and Canal Commission is inserted here is because of the fact that up to to-day the Railway and Canal Commission have functioned when leases are refused under the Acts of 1923 and 1926. Under those Acts an appeal can be taken to them, but the only criterion by which the Railway and Canal Commission can judge is the national interest. While I am sure we all appreciate the sincerity of the views of my hon. Friend and ms desire that the maximum of freedom should be maintained in this country—which I certainly share with him—he must agree that it would be clearly anomalous for Parliament to set up a body to administer a property in the general interests of the industry and the national interest, and at the same time give jurisdiction to somebody else to override any decision that they make, on the ground that it is in the national interest to do so. That is contrary to the whole conception of the plan which we have been discussing up to now—that the Coal Commission are to consider these matters and act in the way they think best in the interests of the industry as a whole and the national interest. It would be inconsistent with that plan to provide that in individual cases there should be some review which could only be based on the national interest. I am sorry to disappoint my


hon. Friend but I do not think it is reasonable to put these powers into a body such as the Railway and Canal Commission, overriding the Coal Commission which ex hypothesi would be in a position to know better what is in the interests of the coal industry and the national interest.

Sir J. Nall: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the Commission will have unfettered and dictatorial powers and that there will be no right of appeal?

11.12 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Before asking leave to withdraw the Clause, may I say that I am not in the least disappointed at the reply of the hon. and gallant Gentleman? But I think it is a little pathetic that no Minister to-day is willing to accept something which, a quarter of a century ago no Minister would dare to oppose. So rapid has been the change and the decline in the view taken of personal liberty that to-day no Minister is prepared to take a view which would have been unanimously supported 25 years ago. Having made that comment on the decline in the democratic spirit in this country, I ask leave to withdraw the Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Compensation to mineral surveyors and others displaced.)

In addition to the compensation payable under Section six of this Act the Commission shall pay to such persons or firms employed in connection with coal or mines of coal at the date of the passing of this Act as are specified or defined in the Schedule (Ascertainment of Compensation to Mineral Surveyors and others displaced) to this Act compensation for any loss suffered by them in consequence of the provisions of this Part of this Act. The provisions of the said Schedule shall have effect with respect to the determination of the nature and amount of such compensation and with respect to the payment thereof, and the settlement of differences or questions concerning such compensation or the right of any person or firm to receive the same.

In this Section and in the said schedule the expression "firm" means persons carrying on a business in partnership with one another and for the purpose of the application of the said schedule to a person or firm by whom at the date of the passing of this Act such a position as is therein mentioned was held in the course of the carrying on of a business the expression "person" or "firm" (as the case may be) where used in reference to any period before the date of the passing

of this Act shall include any predecessors of such person or firm by whom the same business may have been carried on during any part or parts of that period.—[Sir G. Courthope.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.13 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The new Clause which the Committee discussed a short time ago, dealing with compensation, differs from my proposal in one or two particulars. It referred only to compensation for employés. Mine deals with both masters and men—all those employed on technical services in connection with the industry. The other and more important point of difference is this. I am asking that compensation should be paid to these gentlemen out of the revenues of the Coal Commission. The previous new Clause proposed that such payment should be deducted from the global figure, overlooking the fact that already a deduction had been made from the global figure to cover all professional service rendered to the industry at the present time. The First Schedule provides already for the payment by the Coal Commission of salaries and pensions to those professional experts and specialists and, of course, their employés and other servants of the Commission. It provides nothing for those who are now employed in these capacities but who lose their job and their livelihood by failing to enter the service of the Commission. I contend that they are just as much entitled as the others to expect compensation from the Commission.

There are two special reasons why in my view these people should be compensated. One is that the great majority of them are specialists in the sense that, if they lose their special job, they cannot turn to other remunerative employment; they are not trained for any other line of work. It is true that the Clause as drafted includes people such as firms of solicitors who do this work and who no doubt have been trained to do other work as well, but the mineral agent and mining surveyor is a specialist who, if he loses his employment in that capacity, will lose his livelihood.

The other reason is that, when the net revenue from mineral royalties was arrived at, a deduction of 4.54 per cent.


was made from the gross revenue in respect of these professional services. That amounts to approximately £221,000 a year, which is the agreed estimate of the cost of these professional services to the industry as it is to-day when it is being taken over by the Government. That was capitalised, and the global value was consequently reduced by £3,315,000. That sum the Government have saved from the purchase price they are proposing to pay. Surely that is a special reason why they should undertake and pass on to the Commission an obligation in respect of the technical and professional services which the industry at present employs.

When the matter was first raised, it was suggested that this would be a dangerous precedent. It is not a precedent at all. I would remind the Committee that in quite a number of recent statutory amalgamations provision of this kind has been made—for instance, in the case of the Metropolitan Water Board, the Port of London Authority, the amalgamated lines under the Railways Act, 1921, and the London Passenger Transport Board; while the Local Government Act, 1933, provided for a somewhat similar obligation, and there was a like provision in the case of the compulsory amalgamation of the British beet sugar companies. I maintain that these are all precedents in support of my contention that compensation should be paid in this case. The present case is stronger than any of those, because in them the Government were not taking credit for the cost of professional services, while in this case a full capitalised sum, representing the full cost of these professional services, has been deducted from the global sum.

My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade indicated in his answer on a previous Clause the reasons why he would refuse to accept my Clause, as he refused to accept the other. The first reason was that, as it is suggested, these professional experts will have four years of great activity in which to feather their nests, and the fact that they would have that opportunity would free the Coal Commission, with the Government behind it, from any obligation to compensate them when they lose their livelihood for the future. The second reason was that many of them—perhaps the majority—would be employed by the Coal Commission. That is no doubt true, but it is all the more reason why the minority, who

will not be employed, should be compensated. One reason, which I heard for the first time this evening from my right hon. Friend, was that the Government will recommend the Commission to give priority of employment to those who have been employed on this work in the past and have lost their jobs. I must express my surprise at that being put forward. Who else can the Coal Commission employ? They are the technical experts in the coal industry, and the Commission must employ some of them. The recommendation of priority is really worth very little, and I am surprised that my right hon. Friend should have put it forward as an argument. I will sum up by repeating that all the precedents of recent legislation are in support of my proposal, that there is a special reason in that the Government have taken formal credit, by taking account, in fixing the global figure, of the cost of professional services, and that the number who will be thrown out of work will be very few. For all those reasons, I hope my right hon. Friend will change his mind and agree to give compensation to all who suffer under this Bill.

11.24 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I rise to support the Clause moved by the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want at this time of night to argue extensively the point which he has put adequately, but I would remind the Committee, and particularly the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), who is so fond of advocating liberty—

Mr. H. G. Williams: I am supporting the Clause.

Mr. Bellenger: No doubt; but I am informing the hon. Member that the admirable principle he expatiated on a little time ago is not in fact to-day, and never has been, a principle in the system under which we operate. These professional men have accumulated, by their experience and knowledge, a goodwill value in their business, which will be swept away when this new Commission takes over. These professional men, the parents of many of whom have paid premiums for them to acquire this specialist knowledge, and who have had a special education to equip them for the job which they have taken over, have been very unfortunate in that they have not been able to have a strong body behind them like the


Mining Association to force upon the Government their claims in respect of compensation.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I have been reminded by hon. Members very much to my right that, in view of the fact that they are now trying to extend this Measure to protecting the middle classes, I should give some support to the Clause, but even while giving support to the Clause in favour of compensation to professional people in connection with the mines, it is very significant that every section in connection with the mining industry has now been catered for except the miners. It is very strange that a Tory Member should have been called and given an opportunity to present this case, and that the Clause to provide compensation for miners has not been called. The professional people and technicians ought to receive consideration apart altogether from the fact that the Communist party is concerned with protecting these people. They deserve consideration, but something should also be done to ensure compensation for the miner.
The hon. Member who spoke very feelingly and effectively about the professional people said they would lose their livelihood if they were not taken on by the Commission. If they lose their livelihood, something should be done for them. There is not an hon. Member anywhere who, if he knew that a professional man was likely to lose his livelihood would not agree with me that he had a claim. No one could put up an argument against the case made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, but everything that he said in connection with the livelihood of the professional man applies a hundredfold to the miner. I only want to say that as far as this question is concerned, the best possible consideration should be given to the professional men and technicians who give service to the industry. I ask not only for justice for these people but for all kinds of liberty, because, sooner or later, we on this side are going to see to it that they get the liberty of going down the pit or of going into some other industry to work for their living.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Stanley: The discussion on the previous Clause covered some of the

points raised in the present proposal. On that Clause we discussed the compensation which might be payable to the employés of these mineral agents whose own compensation we are now considering. On that Clause I made the statement as to what I am prepared to do with regard to the future employment of the agents themselves and their employés. The Committee decided not to compensate the employés. We are now considering the question of the compensation to the mineral agents themselves. Let me deal first with the question of precedent. I have searched the records and I cannot find any precedent for compensation in circumstances such as these, where people are largely on a fee basis payment. There are precedents for compensation for people who are under contract for services, people who had some contract under which they were employed which secured their employment. The great majority of these people, as far as I know, are remunerated by way of fees, are under no contract and there is no certainty of a continuance of the fees they are receiving. I agree that the case of those who are wholly or mainly engaged in this employment is of a special character. There are a considerable number of people, solicitors, estate agents, and in other professions who have earned a little money from fees by doing a little of this work, and a very small number, between 20 and 30, who are wholly or mainly engaged in this work and who, therefore, might have no alternative employment.
What is the effect of the Bill upon these people? First of all it creates during the next four and a half years a period for them of very intensive activity. The right hon. and gallant Member talks about "feathering their nest," and asks what has that to do with it. I say that if you are going to determine what effect the Bill may have on their earning capacity you must take into consideration the advantages which the Bill is going to give to the earning capacity of these people, and it is fair to consider that during the next four and a half years there will be ample remunerative employment for them on a scale they have never known before.

Mr. Bellenger: On a fee basis?

Mr. Stanley: Yes. During the whole of the valuation period the appeals will necessitate the employment by the claim-


ants of people of this calibre who will be rewarded by fees. It will be the Commission who will bear the whole of the costs of the proceedings, and therefore it will be the Commission who will pay during the four and a half years the enhanced fees which these people will receive. I say that in considering the effect of the Bill upon the livelihood of these people you cannot possibly exclude the very great advantages which the next four and a half years are expected to bring. At the end of this period, during which they will be able not only to continue their profession but look forward to more remunerative times than ever before, what is to happen? The coal and the necessity for management of the property will not disappear, but will merely be transferred from the hands of a large number of individual royalty owners, who do not themselves do the technical work of management of the property, to a Commission of five people, who equally will be unable to do the technical work of managing the property, and will require, just as the royalty owners do, the services of a number of people. I do say, with regard to this group of people, that the prospects of their employment under the Commission are very great indeed.
The statement which I made on the previous Clause extends to and covers this one. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that that is not worth anything. What was the reason that he gave for saying that it is not worth anything? He said that it is not worth giving a pledge that these people will receive priority of employment because they are the people whom, in any case, the Commission will have to employ. Surely, if that be the case, it weakens to a very considerable extent the case for including in this Bill a provision for compensation for the loss of employment, which, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself told the Committee, is extremely improbable, since the particular skill, knowledge and experience which these people possess make it inevitable that they should be the people who will be employed by the Coal Commission in the future. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman made the point that there is a special obligation upon the Government in this case because of the deduction which has been made from the global figure for professional services. But that deduction was made because it was to be the Commission which, in future,

would have to bear the cost of managing these properties. They will have to spend the money which was deducted from the global sum in the management of their properties, just as it has been spent by the royalty owners in the management of their property. There is no doubt that a very considerable proportion of that sum will, in fact, go into exactly the same pockets as those into which the payments of the royalty owners are now going.
I think the Committee will see that, in fact, the interests of these people are very fully safeguarded. First of all, they will have nearly five years' employment. In addition to that, during those five years a large amount of extra work will go to them, the fees of which will be borne by the Commission. After that, there is a practical certainty of their employment by the Commission, because they are the only people who have the skill and experience to carry on the work which they are now doing.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams: I wish that the President of the Board of Trade, in making his speech, had taken into account the Schedule, which is governed by the new Clause moved by my right hon. and gallant Friend. If the President will look at the Schedule, he will see that the compensation is intended only for those who are not taken on by the Commission. That wipes out two-thirds of his speech. The Minister then implied that the Amendment deals only with the employers. If he had read the Schedule, he would have seen the qualifying words at the bottom of page 705, which bring in the employés. This new Clause has an advantage over the one which was moved by hon. Members opposite, but which was not persisted in, in that it covers the whole of those dispossessed and only those who are not taken into the employment by the Commission.
The President said that the deduction from the global figure was made because the Commission would have to bear charges at present borne by the mineral owners, but to the extent to which the Commission do not find it necessary to take on the whole of the staff, they will not have the whole expense, and therefore the capitalised sum of their savings is precisely the sum available for compensation to these dispossessed persons. It is deplorable, after the Clause has been


on the Order Paper for many weeks, that the Mines Department, amid all then-preoccupations, have not taken the trouble to read the Schedule, which really explains the position to a much greater extent than the President's reply, which was devoted to the Clause alone, without any reference to the Schedule.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Peake: I should like to bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend two points which, I think, from the terms of his speech, he may have overlooked. Although there are 20 or 30 firms engaged in this work, and those firms will do very well in the next four or five years, there are employed by them a considerable number of mineral surveyors who are remunerated by way of salary. These employés will not get their salaries increased, at any rate, to any substantial extent, during the next four years. When the Commission has taken over, the amount of measuring up and surveying at the collieries will be greatly reduced because, whereas at present, every half year each separate estate has to be measured up to see exactly what quantity of coal has been extracted, in future, when the leases in each colliery are merged into a single lease, the royalty will simply be calculated on the gross output of the mine as a whole. Probably both sides will agree to accept the pithead weights of coal raised as the index of what the royalty is to be, and all the labour of dividing and measuring up each separate pit will in a few years come to an end. My right hon. Friend has underestimated the amount of displacement of labour which there will be when the Commission has taken control. I hope he will give my remarks further consideration before we part with the Clause.

11.42 p.m.

Mr. Ritson: Several of us have worked with these surveyors all our lives and know the kind of work they do. Many of them are already colliery agents who transfer from one colliery to another and examine the amount of royalties due. Some of the people who have come to me about it are licking their lips over this business because they know they are going to have an opportunity such as they have never had in their lives before. These surveyors will be fully employed,

as the Minister said. They will be working overtime. I am sure the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), who knows the coal trade from his point of view, will allow us to know it from our point of view. I know some very large colliery owners who refuse to give up the idea of being surveyors for other companies. I know one who was one of the largest engineers in the industry who worked for the Earl of Carlisle, and other large royalty owners. Many of these jobs are handed down in the hereditary sense, and I know a surveyor whose grandfather did work for people like that. I see no reason why we should sit here at this time of the night and worry about people who are to have an opportunity they have never had before. The Minister should give a chance to the young fellows who belong to our class, who went to the elementary school, and who have got their engineer's certificate and can survey in the true practical sense.
I can appreciate the hon. Member siding with these people because some of them are well paid for their jobs, and owners of royalties have been robbed of thousands of pounds by the way they have not done their work. The colliery owners welcome that, because if an owner has any pillars or any water or any difficulty and can get a half-dead surveyor like that, he can jump things. I am not joking; I am only putting it in my rough way, with practical knowledge of hundreds of pillars of coal which have been jumped just in order to get the best bit out of the industrial pantry. One of the reasons why we are supporting this thing is in order that the nation may get the best out of the industry. Many of the men are of the type who would be better if they had less to do and did it better. I am surprised that an hon. Friend of mine here should come along to weep over these men, with the opportunities they are going to have in the next four and a-half years. Apart from what the Minister has said I am convinced that there will be a desire for coal development, to find coal where it is not being worked now, and these men will be employed. I only wish the people who will be thrown out of work by these amalgamations had the same opportunity of having an advancement in their employment as the men over whom we are asked to mourn.

Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.

Ordered,
That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

COTTON INDUSTRY BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

DOGS ACT (1871) AMENDMENT BILL.

Considered in Committee," reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order,

Adjourned at Ten Minutes before Twelve o'Clock.